Well that's a relief.
She's not going to have brains so she's going to need to get by on her looks.
A very, very pretty one too, by the way.
Everyone should let this thread die now!
Nik, you wanna evolute with me? Let's do this. Time machine is fueled up.
I'll evolute with you any time, hottie :wub:
Great Scott!!!
By the way, let's quote all of Nik's posts in any of Phineas' threads so that the ignore function will never work.
A very, very pretty one too, by the way.
Okay that's just creepy right there.
Haha, I just get home and it was a joy to read all the kind new uplifting posts.
I was at work moving into my plush new private office with the help of my lovely, well-organized wife.
It may change 30 seconds from now, but for the moment, life is grand.
This was a good. It forced me to do some research and it crystallized some things in my mind.
I'm more convinced than ever in intelligent design. You can put your hope in time and random chance if you'd like, but I'm putting my chips on a creator.
I've been designing new products for over 20 years. I know that if I put a new product design on my boss' desk and he responded by saying that I didn't design it at all, but it was the results of random molecules colliding I wouldn't be too pleased.
I wonder how the grand designer feels when pipsqueaks deny his handiwork?
On what basis? What evidence is there to support that idea? You've asked for evidence of evolution, and heaps of it were supplied to you.I'm more convinced than ever in intelligent design.
We don't have to hope. We have facts and evidence. It's revealing that you would project the fact that you only have hope instead of evidence on to us, though.You can put your hope in time and random chance if you'd like, but I'm putting my chips on a creator.
How many of those products are imperfect replicators?I've been designing new products for over 20 years. I know that if I put a new product design on my boss' desk and he responded by saying that I didn't design it at all, but it was the results of random molecules colliding I wouldn't be too pleased.
What designer?I wonder how the grand designer feels when pipsqueaks deny his handiwork?
Of course, if you found a watch on the ground, and wanted to investigate its origin, you would be mistaken to rule out design a priori.
If you were curious enough, you might waste an entire lifetime dabbling in spurious explanations.
See any silimarties here to our discussion?
Jumping to conclusions isn't a very good way to do science, I'm afraid.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA301.htmlResponse:
1. The naturalism that science adopts is methodological naturalism. It does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have. The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when it claims observable results that can be studied scientifically, the supernatural is studied scientifically (e.g., Astin et al. 2000; Enright 1999). It gets little attention because it has never been reliably observed. Still, there are many scientists who use naturalism but who believe in more than nature.
2. The very same form of naturalism is used by everyone, including creationists, in their day-to-day lives. People literally could not survive without making naturalistic assumptions. Creationism itself is based on the naturalistic assumption that the Bible has not changed since the last time it was read.
3. Naturalism works. By assuming methodological naturalism, we have made tremendous advances in industry, medicine, agriculture, and many other fields. Supernaturalism has never led anywhere. Newton, for example, wrote far more on theology than he did on physics, but his theological work is largely forgotten because there has been no reason to remember it other than for historical curiosity.
4. Supernaturalism is contentious. Scientific findings are based on hard evidence, and scientists can point at the evidence to resolve disputes. People tend to have different and incompatible ideas of what form supernatural influences take, and all too often the only effective way they have found for reaching a consensus is by killing each other.
This isn't true. Creationism doesn't explain anything. Consider an analogy:
You put me and Frank in a room with a hermetically sealed jar on the table with a penny and shut the door. There are no windows or other means of observing the room while Frank and I are in it with our jar and penny.
After some time, you enter the room again, to find Frank and me, and the penny inside the jar, yet the seal on the jar is unbroken.
"How did that penny get in the jar without breaking the seal?" you ask.
"Greg put the penny in there," I reply. (That is not a typo)
Now, what exactly have I explained about how the penny got in the jar?
Creationism doesn't "explain" anything. Science is about discovering how things became the way we observe them. Creationism simply answers a "who" question that wasn't asked, and moreover it does so by naming an entity which doesn't appear to exist.
Well that's a relief.
She's not going to have brains so she's going to need to get by on her looks.
She's attractive, she's a hard worker, she has a good personality, and she's smart enough. I'm not too concerned about her.
Okay, let's talk about reason.
Say you find a watch on the ground and you want to investigate its origin. Would you rule out a designer, a priori? That's what a lot of folks here want to do. Does that seem reasonable to you?
The crucial difference between science and all religions is that science acknowledges the unknown and doesn't claim absolute domain over creation theories. It is willing to change its theories based on evidence. The opposite holds true for religion.
I would either go with Occam's razor and say a designer creating the watch wouldn't be the simplest solution for explaining the existence of a watch. In this case this is a very ambiguous approach.
If however I do play the Devil's Advocate and say that the designer created the watch, this doesn't solve anything either. Religion and ID claim that they know the origin of the universe or at least planet Earth, etc but that is a just a short stop gap really. To show you what I mean I would like the troll to answer the question does knowing God created the watch change anything really or answer any questions? Not really, since one can go ad infinitum asking for the designer of the designer and then of the designer of the designer of the designer..... The crucial difference between science and all religions is that science acknowledges the unknown and doesn't claim absolute domain over creation theories. It is willing to change its theories based on evidence. The opposite holds true for religion.
Cool. If she does have brains, she'll see for herself later in life so I won't worry about her either.
I wonder how you're going to treat her when she asks you the same questions we've asked you.
"DUHHHH... um... well... what do you mean by "logic," dear?" :biggrin:
You denied them, but no substantive rebuttal was supplied by you, merely falsehoods.In this thread, I rebutted the "proofs" provided for macroevolution...
With absolutely no proffered evidence whatsoever....and I provided my opinion on origins.
Illuminating your insanity.What exactly was your contribution?
You denied them, but no substantive rebuttal was supplied by you, merely falsehoods.
With absolutely no proffered evidence whatsoever.
Illuminating your insanity.
Your idea of a discussion is to send me this link over and over again.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
You really need to learn to think for yourself and critically examine information rather than relying on others to think for you.
You suggested that over time, the cummulative effect of microevolution leads to macroevolutiuonary changes and cited the fossil record, homology, and biogeography.
I examined each of these factors and showed how they don't support your theory at all.