Page 1028 of 1028 FirstFirst ... 285289289781018102610271028
Results 10,271 to 10,276 of 10276

Thread: Evolution: The Grand Deception

  1. #10271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truly Enlightened View Post
    The watchmaker's analogy(not proof) has been debunked, and is self-refuting. Would you like a fairly large post explaining how it refutes itself? Here's a small example of what a false empirical analogy looks like.

    I. A watch is complex
    II. A watch has a watchmaker
    III. The universe is also complex
    IV. Therefore the universe has a watchmaker

    The last step is wrong, because it concludes something that is not supported by the criteria. Another example of this distorted logic is,

    I. Leaves are complex cellulose structures
    II. Leaves grow on trees
    III. Money bills are also complex cellulose structures
    IV. Therefore money grows on trees

    We should focus on the simplicity of complexity, not the complexity itself. This is what true understanding is all about. Don


    The "simplicity of complexity"? More irrational mumbo jumbo. From a normal human bieng's perspective, complexity can be determined and observed.

    Here's some other topics for you to explore; the bigness of smallness, the smallness of bigness, the sanity of insanity, the happiness of sadness, etc.
    Truth is like a lion, it does not need to be defended, simply let it loose.

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    The "simplicity of complexity"? More irrational mumbo jumbo. From a normal human bieng's perspective, complexity can be determined and observed.

    Here's some other topics for you to explore; the bigness of smallness, the smallness of bigness, the sanity of insanity, the happiness of sadness, etc.
    As usual, you ignored my question or address the watchmaker fallacy. You just found 3 words that you thought you could exploit. Since you are not a scientist, I can forgive your not understanding that the goal of most scientist, is to put the most eloquent and complex of ideas into a 2 inch formula. Hence the simplicity of complexity. The rest is a perfect example of the logical fallacy of "Reductio ad Absurdum". What you and your mob fail to understand, is that I really do my homework before I post anything. I will always be able to back-up anything I say with facts, evidence, and unlike you guys, fallacy-free consistent logic.

    You guys seem oblivious, or muted to our constantly reminding you that even is all science is proven false, you don't win by default. Creationism must be able to stand on its own, with its own supporting evidence. So why do you keep distorting science as indirect proof? It is all irrelevant to your position. You can't keep saying the Micky Mouse is the ID, and keep us buried in answering questions, chasing absolutes, and always on the defensive, which is all irrelevant to your unfalsifiable position. What are the signs that indicate that an ID exist? What evidence can you claim supports any belief in the supernatural? Don

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    Yes, I'm shifting the focus to you because you cannot grasp a simple concept.
    I don't debate irrational people so unless you can show an ability to understand the topic then I'll have to ignore you.

    After multiple times at describing the concept, even on a very basic level, you have failed to grasp it.
    Is this a threat Shel, or a promise? You will be missed as well as your usual intellectually stimulating arguments. Don

  4. #10274
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truly Enlightened View Post
    Is this a threat Shel, or a promise? You will be missed as well as your usual intellectually stimulating arguments. Don
    Give it a try. You might like to consider how much others would like to miss it too.

  5. #10275
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Longmont, CO
    Posts
    10,987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeboll64 View Post
    Who said anything about proof? I'm talking about appearances, and have no time for your "Living things don't appear to have been designed" crap. I realize that denial is your best friend, but I have no more time to waste on it.

    Is evolution more intelligent than we thought?

    Date: December 18, 2015

    Source: University of Southampton

    Summary: Evolution may be more intelligent than we thought, according to researchers. In a new article, the authors make the case that evolution is able to learn from previous experience, which could provide a better explanation of how evolution by natural selection produces such apparently intelligent designs.

    It seems that complicated living things clearly appear to have been designed for a purpose (an appearance that you alone deny) because evolution is intelligent, and learns from its previous experiences.

    So who's misrepresenting? Who's being dishonest? Are you able to see the rabbit trail of absurdity that denial leads you guys down? Or will you just deny that as well?
    You're being misled by your prior beliefs. The appearance of design proves nothing.

    People see patterns in everything. Clouds, rocks bushes, you name it. We're built that way.

    Our ancestors lived in a dangerous world, where small clues might indicate a lurking predator.

    Another example is here in Colorado. There's a huge boulder balanced on a base no more than a foot in diameter.

    Clearly someone must have placed it that way long ago, tipped it up on that tiny base, right?

    The appearance of design.

    But no, it was simply the result of wind and water, eroding away the softer parts of the base strata.

    Another is the natural arches in another park. Erosion at work again.

    Roger
    It is not God that kills the children, not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs.
    It's us. Only us. - Rorschach

  6. #10276
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogerh View Post
    You're being misled by your prior beliefs. The appearance of design proves nothing.

    People see patterns in everything. Clouds, rocks bushes, you name it. We're built that way.

    Our ancestors lived in a dangerous world, where small clues might indicate a lurking predator.

    Another example is here in Colorado. There's a huge boulder balanced on a base no more than a foot in diameter.

    Clearly someone must have placed it that way long ago, tipped it up on that tiny base, right?

    The appearance of design.

    But no, it was simply the result of wind and water, eroding away the softer parts of the base strata.

    Another is the natural arches in another park. Erosion at work again.

    Roger
    The "Indian Chief" rock in Minorca couldn't possibly be an accident of Nature - could it?
    "True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it."Karl K. Popper

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •