Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

That's like asking us to hear the sorry tale of the flagella being compared to a stirrup pump spun for his worship the judge at Dover.

For a start a camera can't "do" anything. An eye can invent a camera but a camera can't invent an eye. An eye can select. A camera makes no distinction between any of the components in the image it records. It treats a fine, silk-stockinged leg egressing a car door in the same way as it does a nearby fire hydrant. The eye doesn't even see the hydrant. I suppose a fire hydrant manufacturer might not see the leg.

There are many animistic religions which see humanity as just another aspect of all life forms but that we might be kith and kin with mechanical devices, structured dirt, is a faith not yet given the dignity of a title.

What a camera is made to get up to has no possible connection to what eyes do and to suggest they do the "exact same thing" is ludicrous. It would make more sense if the champion Olympic diver was compared to a heap of bricks shoved off the top board.

Once again practicing being droll.
I always knew youd gather near the "fortified wines" category. That guarantees to keep your nose a festive red with cerulean venation.

When you simply make stuff up to argue against I guess it makes sense in your mind.
However, the LENS of an eye is NOT the eye. It merely focuses the light. The lens on the eye still acts exactly like the lens on a camera and it doesn't make a camera an eye and I never said as much but if you want to flagellate yourself over the flagella then go ahead.

I defy you, or anybody else, to prove that. It's like saying that the skin acts like the hull of a ship.

You're the one making stuff up.

And it wasn't me who flagellated over the flagella. It was counsel for the plaintiffs at Dover.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm
Light refraction has long been proven Spendi. Your bluster doesn't change how light works when it passes through a lens. The lens works to focus the light whether in an eye or in a camera.

FM, I wished I had your self-confidence ... on the grounds of the missing evidences in support of it.
The problem is that one should not only have knowledge ... but also knowledge of 'the right type' – as your fellow-atheists-agnostics would say – knowledge based on verified and validated data, without any logical contradictions ... and without compromises with your conscience. BTW the difference between agnostic (not-knowing) and ignorant is not too big.
If you think that reading books of any type is knowledge, why don't you explain this to us ... how does that happen.
Sometimes reading books of the wrong type might mean ignorance, and might be much more dangerous than non-reading anything ... and watching TV.

So you don't believe anything if there is missing evidence Herald? That's an interesting stance to attempt to take when you are a theist.

Sort of like rocks of the "right age and location ..." At least Im consistent

I actually agree with your stand there Herald, I really do. That's why my querulous look is how you, in good"faith" can adopt your own POV which is based on NO EVIDENCE AT ALL?

Reading books is a way to begin. A 38 year career in geology and geochemistry has allowed me to see and examine many of the key sites that geology has disclosed in verifying this old earths age and structure.

Now, I believe that, rolling up all your attempted arguments, you believe that scientists are STUPID people who cant tell their asses from a vug. You deny ALL the evidence that exists (The actual "GAPS" wre quite few and are subjects of intense work by grad students and colleagues.
The concept of creation and creation again and again is just pure obstinacy and denial based upon nothing valid. Most ALL od the bases of denial by Creationists is actually fraudulent logic and untruth. (Like Austens assertion that Poloniom pleiochroism in micas(so called Poloniom :HALOS")) are "evidence of a young earth); or that pre-Adamic man fully explains how Cain got his "wife"; or the concept of "kind" is valid (when its not even a fully developed concept).
I don't have a problem with "gaps" existing because those that exist are NOT a challenge to deny that natural selection works. They are mostly fine points that require development in the evolution of a specific species or a detail on a species time line .
Creation is based upon a false series of assertions based upon some vague lines in Scripture. These are false linnes taken by you guys to be "evidence" when real evidence shows this Scripture to be just the opposite of reality.
Or your assertions that humans and dinosaurs actually "lived togetjher in time".

youre serious? When you can explain that your sides belief in a "special science of radionuclide decay", or how th earth's existence follows scripture canbe mathematically validated, Ill be the first to give you some equal time . Until you can give me the "mass variations" in mass decay constants and how that rolls up into the "NEW DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS" of CREATION PHYSICS, you really have NO credibility.Youve been stumbling on idiotic phrases and misuse of scientific terms and generally been tripping over yourself in silly misquotes and misrepresentations. Most of us have been rather deferring so that we didn't seem too insulting. However, you soon ought to get to some kind of a point in evidence otherwise youre losing your audience here.

I asked you to post this thread so as not to waste time in another. Now Im asking you to get to some kind of a point herein so that you don't appear as too ignorant of a debater. Im actually losing patience with you .

Ive given you pages posts of logical evidence that can easily be verified by just googling on scholar.Youve merely denied this by ignoring it.I really don't care that you've ignored it since Im not the one whose at a loss for a limited mass of data, Ive got a huge trove of it and weve barely scratched the surface.

Ive actually given you the basis of a fairly credible argument for your side (that of evolutionary convergence) to which you've chosen to ignore for more "vague" and "silly" areas of discourse where you ramble on and on with no technical points in sight.

You've instead tried to criticize me by ad-hominem shots , all of which have no basis in fact or math. You've been taking us nowhere and Im asking you to get to a point cause Im tired of shooting down your arguments . SHow me something that lets me believe that you even know what youre talking about.

Ill wait for some sign of intelligent life from your worldview.

Your "cience leaders " have let you down. They've promised great things such as "Clear evidence of "Intelligence" in the universe". Im wondering when they are going to come across with this data.
Im patient but not eternally so. You've gotta get down to soe clear point of debate or just go south for the winter. Mardi gras is coming up in two months

You are so patient with these people. It's miraculous.

naaah. I look on it as a way to find out whats on the Creationist mind. Id spent several years on the PA Ed advisory committees on developing science ed criteria for secondary public schools. We were peppered with petitions by these Creation SCience types to digress from reality and "be inclusive to many views"
As a result PA became the first state to develop its science education policy to be based upon the first amendment of the US Constitution. We embodied the "Establishment Clause" and the "Scientific Method" as coequal partners in how we allow our school districts to develop their science programs.
It worked pretty good except we knew we would be challenged by some fundamentalist group that wanted their worldview included in science class.

Yeah. I read about it all the time. They try to sneak creationism into science by using the phrase "alternate theories". So far only Louisiana has really had a legitimate problem. I get somewhat worked up about it because these people have no idea how much damage they're doing.

What did you get your PhD in? I think you mentioned Geology earlier but I forgot. I just took my first Geology class. We have a Biology/Geology joint-type class here and I figured I might as well take it since I needed 3 more credits. It's really given me a better insight and an easier route to thwarting creationist nut-bags like Gungasnake and Neologist.

Blimey!!

A containing envelope works to keep everything inside whether a ship's hull a picnic basket, a garden shed or a body's skin.

The alphabet works to compose thoughts for communication whether in Shakespeare's room or in your room.

I did my diss in Economic Geochem. Its an applied science area for folks in mining geo and exploration . I started in chem and did an MS in inorganic chem .I let my career desires govern my needs. I was actually teaching as I finished my terminal degrees. I had the ABD (all but defense) going to let me figure out that the "tenure track" wasn't long for me. I was a field guy who loved the unknown of the applied
sciences. Its been very rewarding professionally and financially and Id recommend it for anyone as a safe long term area of employment. My main area is in rare earth elements although Ive done research into applied fracking and slant drilling in foreign fossil fuel deposits.

Gunga likes to portray himself as well informed. Hes about 30 years behind and hes been told several times
Neo wants us to believe that hes fair minded. Hes governed by a religious worldview that is quite strict and not open to input. So, while hes friendly enough, he isn't able to buy into science without a severe life change. I don't hold much hope.
This "Herald kid" is so off the track that he has no idea about almost anything he says. I think you can surmise that from his wacky disjointed posts
Spendi actually likes to pretend that hes being a "devils advocate" even though he accepts the facts of science. Hes just a lickspittle for anyone who strokes his ego.

mot everyone else is pretty damn well informed and they KEEP UP WITH THEIR HOMEWORK.

ARE you a sci major?

That's an assertion H. It is a dogma 0f an ancient religion. It allows believers to imagine they are wiser than other thinkers. It's Socratic. It passed from Socrates to Plato to Christianity and now to Humanism. All believe, yes believe, in progress based on knowledge and Darwin found that there is no such thing as progress in the story of life and that there is no special status in life for humankind. Which are heresies to Socratics, Platonists, Christians and Humanists alike. And truths to animists.

There is no necessary connection between human knowledge and human well being. The pursuit of truth is not necessarily linked to a mystical idea of the good. It is linked to the hubris of ambition.

A pack of cards is a stable object. Build a house with the cards and it looks good. It is clever. And skillful. But one light touch and the house of cards crashes down in chaos. The bigger the house of cards the bigger the mess. And the physical environment, and the financial one, are fragile constructions.

The pursuit of knowledge bids fair to shipwreck humanity and possibly all life. There is no "right type" of knowledge.

fm refused the question of why does truth have an evolutionary advantage over error. He is eager to provide answers when he thinks he has them.

How many lies are told in order to mate? Animals use deception.

Is the search for truth driven merely by the tormented fearing uncertainty whilst being attracted to uncertain situations such as taking to the sea in a small boat.

Is the roar of the crowd when its team scores a goal a sigh of relief that the uncertainty of losing is reduced. But they paid money to find the uncertain situation.

Uncertainty is a normal condition of life. Even inside atoms if atoms can be conceived of having insides. Which they can't.

Crikey fm--you really are a very special specimen of the human race aren't you? You should thank James for bowling you a nice, slow long-hop and it's always a treat to see one of those smacked out of the ground.

I must admit that I have a partiality to having my ego stroked. It is much better than having to stroke your own.



Have you not thought of a political career? You obviously know how to round up a claque.

If a ship's hull had pores that allowed water to pass through it, the ship wouldn't be a ship for long.

So to recap:
Lens - both allow light to pass through the same in eye and camera both focus the light

Hull and skin - one designed to not allow any water to pass through it and the other designed to allow water to pass through.

spendi feels that logic and accuracy are overblown requisites of science

A ship's hull is designed to allow water to pass in and, like skin, to pass out again after being used.

An eye is nothing like a camera lens never mind "exactly" like one. You might as well say a microphone is exactly like an ear or a mechanical probe is akin to human touch or that a smoke detector is like a nose. I can't think of anything that is like human taste though.

A drop of water focuses light too.

I guess you could argue that if you want to argue that your mouth and arse are nothing more than pores.


Repeating your straw man doesn't mean I said what you want to argue against.

Yeah.

I'm about 2 semesters away from a bachelors in evolutionary Biology and I'm looking to go into medical research afterwards (wallet is bracing for impact lol).