It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ... Full Story
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109689 Feb 3, 2013
coco wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean he has no balls? Is that the fruit you are speaking of?
Well that's one way of putting it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109690 Feb 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would have to agree with that. The creation of a hoax does not invalidate the actual religion of Christianity.
Just as, the creation of a hoax like Piltdown Man does not invalidate the science of evolution. Yet seventy odd years after its exposure (by evolutionary scientists, of course), creationists still cannot stop going on about it.
Yet apparently we should be "fracking ashamed" of Piltdown.

Me maybe, since I'm a Brit.

:-p
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109691 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
So you see development and creation are influenced by intelligence here...
<quoted text>
I see no intelligence being demonstrated here.
That bit isn't even intelligible.
How many sentences were you intending to compose?
How many ideas were you intending to express?
You tards can hardly compose a sentence, yet you want people to buy into your evolution joke?
But of course, your complete and total ignorance of a subject is quite obviously a valid critique.

The only reason behind you not understanding his post is due to your simple lack of knowledge of the subject. Biology is not invalidated just because some fundies proposing Godmagic as an alternative don't know the first thing about it.
God Himself wrote:
While the process facilitated the creation of someone like you, I will tend to question its efficiency myself.
Yet to the extent that the process has lead to the emergence of creatures that are fully able to adapt, survive and respond effectively to theor environments; THERE IS NATURAL EFFICIENCY IN NATURE.
Tell that to all the species who have gone extinct.

This would include 99% of all life that has ever lived during the past 3.5 to 4 billion years of biological history.

But thanks for demonstrating for the second time that you still can't provide a better explanation. We say evolution happened, you cry BS, then you claim Goddidit with magic - by using evolution.
God Himself wrote:
FURTHERMORE, THE EFFICIENCY OF NATURAL PROCESSES DEMONSTRATES THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AGENT(S) THAT ARE CONTROLLING THEM (while efficiency indicate intelligence).
You could have simply said: "The efficiency of nature indicates an intelligence behind it."

Instead you just said: "The efficiency of nature indicates an intelligence behind it while the efficiency of nature indicates an intelligence behind it."

This is in a post where you critiqued another poster for being "unintelligible".

Man, you certainly got it in for irony meters today...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#109692 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
So you see development and creation are influenced by intelligence here...
<quoted text>
I see no intelligence being demonstrated here.
That bit isn't even intelligible.
How many sentences were you intending to compose?
How many ideas were you intending to express?
You tards can hardly compose a sentence, yet you want people to buy into your evolution joke?
<quoted text>
While the process facilitated the creation of someone like you, I will tend to question its efficiency myself.
Yet to the extent that the process has lead to the emergence of creatures that are fully able to adapt, survive and respond effectively to theor environments; THERE IS NATURAL EFFICIENCY IN NATURE.
FURTHERMORE, THE EFFICIENCY OF NATURAL PROCESSES DEMONSTRATES THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AGENT(S) THAT ARE CONTROLLING THEM (while efficiency indicate intelligence).
We are already hundreds of times more efficient than whatever caused life to be, without a doubt. So if there is some god, by saying this was all by design, you are insulting that god. You should be more careful with that, I doubt whatever deity might exist would be happy to have this mess blamed on it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109693 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
So you see development and creation are influenced by intelligence here...
<quoted text>
I see no intelligence being demonstrated here.
That bit isn't even intelligible.
How many sentences were you intending to compose?
How many ideas were you intending to express?
You tards can hardly compose a sentence, yet you want people to buy into your evolution joke?
<quoted text>
While the process facilitated the creation of someone like you, I will tend to question its efficiency myself.
Yet to the extent that the process has lead to the emergence of creatures that are fully able to adapt, survive and respond effectively to theor environments; THERE IS NATURAL EFFICIENCY IN NATURE.
FURTHERMORE, THE EFFICIENCY OF NATURAL PROCESSES DEMONSTRATES THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AGENT(S) THAT ARE CONTROLLING THEM (while efficiency indicate intelligence).
Yes, your argument is far more eloquent and forceful when you type entire sentences in CAPS LOCK. Learned that at Creotard School, did you? Yet it seem that sentences of more than twelve words still confound you.

I will say it more simply, again, just for you.

You made the already stupid claim that efficiency equals intelligence.

I pointed out that even limited human intelligence was capable of moving from the first understanding of electromagnetic theory to building complex supercomputers in a century. That is, 100 years.

Most efficiency experts would agree that some essential elements of efficiency are time, elimination of waste, and elimination of redundancy.

However:

The supposedly intelligent and efficient process of creating a human took 3,500,000,000 years. The supposedly intelligent and efficient process of evolution stuffed around with giant reptiles for 180 million years before scrapping them for mammals. Whole orders of armoured fish, giant amphibians, trilobites, pterosaurs, smilodons, giant wombats and sloths...

The supposedly intelligent and efficient process of creation resulted in an extinction rate estimated to be in excess of 99%

The supposedly intelligent and efficient process of creation resulted in design flaws that would see a Toyota engineer (though perhaps not a GM one) fired. The laryngeal nerve the giraffe. The overly complex wing of an ostrich. The 1000-odd useless genes on the whale genome related to a now non-functioning sense of smell. Useless eyes on cave rats, covered permanently with skin.

Evolution is many things marvelous things, but "efficient" it is not.

My apologies for the slightly unusual grammatical structure of the last sentence. Again, I should explain that this is a rhetorical device. I hope you can cope.

Now do you understand, moron?

God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109694 Feb 3, 2013
The Dude wrote:
It has no "import".
The sun "performs" nuclear fusion. Perhaps it even does it extremely efficiently? Or perhaps not. Either way, it does it. That still does not indicate any intelligence on the part of the sun or invisible Jews. Though I admire the mental gymnastics on your part in attempting to avoid the simple fact that you have no mechanisms for your proposed intelligence nor evidence for it.
Are you gay?

Read on, let me show you that you are not thinking straight.
The Dude wrote:
..."Efficiency" does not mean "it works". It means it works...
See?

Is that logical?

Is that intellectually honest?

Is that fair thinking?

Its not that we are not saying the same things: you only reject what I am saying for the simple fact that it relates to God.

THE FACT IS THAT EFFICIENCY DEMONSTRATES INTELLIGENCE.

And whenever you deny that; then nothing you will ever say or do or think will ever demonstrate that you are intelligent NO MATTER HOW EFFECTIVELY YOU DO THOSE THINGS.

Thats the sh!t hole you evos keep falling into. By denying the existence of God, you will eventually deny your humanity.
The Dude wrote:
. Yet above you just stated it matters not whether it's efficient or not, just as long as it works.
Where have I stated that "it matters not whether it's efficient or not, just as long as it works."?
The Dude wrote:
Now you're back to saying efficiency is what matters.
Wasnt that always my argument?

Efficiency does matter; but my argument is that this efficiency is not inherent in the subject(s), but is induced or caused by an agent.
The Dude wrote:
I claim neither are relevant as evidence of intelligence as they are merely being used as weasel-words in order to avoid directly explaining the mechanisms responsible.
If efficiency is not evidence of intelligence; then your most effective efforts will never be able to demonstrate your intelligence.

So what you end up with is Harvard and the rest, full of creative dunces.

Einstein and the rest demonstrated no intelligence; because the efficiency of the concepts that they formulated does not demonstrate intelligence.

Indeed, one fool makes many.
The Dude wrote:
In which case you have no issue with common ancestry.
I dont have to have an issue with anything. The Concept of God, can embrace all ideas and types of thought.
God Himself wrote:
I asked for proof/evidence that inanimate particles and elements possess the inherent potential to just "poof!" and form genes and structured organisms etc over many many years.
You have not been able to demonstrate it yet.
The Dude wrote:
And I have no intention to since that is not our claim...
MY claim?

"The study of the origin of life on Earth or, more specifically, how life on Earth began from inanimate matter, is technically known as abiogenesis..." [http://www.physicsoftheuniver se.com/topics_life.html]

You dont even know anything about science, do you?
The Dude wrote:
...If they are demonstrated in nature you should be able to point out how that's done in an objective manner via the scientific method.
Right.

And anything that you are not "able to point out how that's done in an objective manner via the scientific method", is false and unscientific?

So WHATEVER is not testable or demonstrable by scientific method is non-existent and false and not true nor real; even though "reality" by definition, "includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible" ( wikipedia.com )?

Got it.

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!
The Dude wrote:
If you are only describing observable natural phenomena and using it as a metaphor for God then God is scientifically meaningless, though it may give you a philosophical/theological happy.
You would love to be able to reduce God to a metaphor wouldnt you?

LOL!!!!
Sugar20

London, UK

#109695 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you gay?
Read on, let me show you that you are not thinking straight.
<quoted text>
See?
Is that logical?
Is that intellectually honest?
Is that fair thinking?
Its not that we are not saying the same things: you only reject what I am saying for the simple fact that it relates to God.
THE FACT IS THAT EFFICIENCY DEMONSTRATES INTELLIGENCE.
And whenever you deny that; then nothing you will ever say or do or think will ever demonstrate that you are intelligent NO MATTER HOW EFFECTIVELY YOU DO THOSE THINGS.
Thats the sh!t hole you evos keep falling into. By denying the existence of God, you will eventually deny your humanity.
<quoted text>
Where have I stated that "it matters not whether it's efficient or not, just as long as it works."?
<quoted text>
Wasnt that always my argument?
Efficiency does matter; but my argument is that this efficiency is not inherent in the subject(s), but is induced or caused by an agent.
<quoted text>
If efficiency is not evidence of intelligence; then your most effective efforts will never be able to demonstrate your intelligence.
So what you end up with is Harvard and the rest, full of creative dunces.
Einstein and the rest demonstrated no intelligence; because the efficiency of the concepts that they formulated does not demonstrate intelligence.
Indeed, one fool makes many.
<quoted text>
I dont have to have an issue with anything. The Concept of God, can embrace all ideas and types of thought.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
MY claim?
"The study of the origin of life on Earth or, more specifically, how life on Earth began from inanimate matter, is technically known as abiogenesis..." [http://www.physicsoftheuniver se.com/topics_life.html]
You dont even know anything about science, do you?
<quoted text>
Right.
And anything that you are not "able to point out how that's done in an objective manner via the scientific method", is false and unscientific?
So WHATEVER is not testable or demonstrable by scientific method is non-existent and false and not true nor real; even though "reality" by definition, "includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible" ( wikipedia.com )?
Got it.
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!
<quoted text>
You would love to be able to reduce God to a metaphor wouldnt you?
LOL!!!!
I'm sorry; I'm having problems with my memory and I'm trying to recall your name; was it Donald Edge? My apologies for not remembering!
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109696 Feb 3, 2013
The Dude wrote:
... Biology is not invalidated just because some fundies proposing Godmagic as an alternative don't know the first thing about it.
Godmagic is not invalidated just because some fundies proposing Biology as an alternative don't know the first thing about it either.*shrug*
The Dude wrote:
Tell that to all the species who have gone extinct.
Why, didnt you say "" Tell that to the species that are still surviving?

See, YOU ARE PREDISPOSED TO ASSUMING THE NEGATIVE AS IT RELATES TO GOD.
The Dude wrote:
This would include 99% of all life that has ever lived during the past 3.5 to 4 billion years of biological history.
But thanks for demonstrating for the second time that you still can't provide a better explanation. We say evolution happened, you cry BS, then you claim Goddidit with magic - by using evolution.
I dont have a problem with evolution.

Evolution is THE STUDY (not the fact, but the STUDY) "...of how living things have changed over time SINCE life FIRST AROSE..." [http://www.physicsoftheuniver se.com/topics_life.html]

While even God Himself spoke of how the earth would be transformed after the Eden incident (as such), I have no reason to take a stance AGAINST evolution theory.

My problem is with dumb-@sses who think that "there is no need for God", is a conclusion regarding the role of God in the Natural world. Idiots!
The Dude wrote:
You could have simply said: "The efficiency of nature indicates an intelligence behind it."
Instead you just said: "The efficiency of nature indicates an intelligence behind it while the efficiency of nature indicates an intelligence behind it."
This is in a post where you critiqued another poster for being "unintelligible".
Man, you certainly got it in for irony meters today...
Show me the post where I wrote that.

And even if I did write that; wouldnt you be able to make sense of it, seeing the obvious repetition?
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109697 Feb 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
We are already hundreds of times more efficient than whatever caused life to be, without a doubt...
You die and decay;

The thing which caused life keeps causing life;

Yet you are more efficient than whatever caused life to be?

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!

Level 3

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#109698 Feb 3, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Except the problem is that we are able to refute him, and he is unable to refute us. He then lies a lot then acts dishonestly in order to avoid tackling the subject in an intellectually honest manner. He is therefore taken to task for his behaviour. He then refuses to talk to some people for being too "mean", although there have been many times he has boasted about is prowess at being a macho-man. Understandably we are left unimpressed.
Now that's interesting! Be careful, there is a guy running around posing as different people and I think his name is Donald Edge, as I'm trying to recall. Just a heads up!
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#109699 Feb 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
...You made the already... claim that efficiency equals intelligence.
Yes.
Chimney1 wrote:
I pointed out that even limited human intelligence was capable of moving from the first understanding of electromagnetic theory to building complex supercomputers in a century.
Thus agreeing with me. Now what?
Chimney1 wrote:
Most efficiency experts would agree that some essential elements of efficiency are time, elimination of waste, and elimination of redundancy.
All of which intelligence does.
Chimney1 wrote:
However:
The supposedly intelligent and efficient process of creating a human took 3,500,000,000 years. The supposedly intelligent and efficient process of evolution stuffed around with giant reptiles for 180 million years before scrapping them for mammals. Whole orders of armoured fish, giant amphibians, trilobites, pterosaurs, smilodons, giant wombats and sloths...
Amazing, isnt it?
Chimney1 wrote:
The supposedly intelligent and efficient process of creation resulted in an extinction rate estimated to be in excess of 99%
Yet species are still alive and surviving.

Isnt that just Miraculous?!!
Chimney1 wrote:
The supposedly intelligent and efficient process of creation resulted in design flaws that would see a Toyota engineer (though perhaps not a GM one) fired.
It also resulted in the "fine-tuning" of the universe is certain ways, to facilitate the emergence of structure and life too. Examples of this include but are not limited to:

a. ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism;
b. strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei;
c. elative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe;
d. ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass;

But you just conveniently forgot all that didnt you?
Chimney1 wrote:
The laryngeal nerve the giraffe. The overly complex wing of an ostrich. The 1000-odd useless genes on the whale genome related to a now non-functioning sense of smell. Useless eyes on cave rats, covered permanently with skin.
Evolution is many things marvelous things, but "efficient" it is not.
I might agree, IF you admit that you are one of the retarded entities whos existence demonstrates the in-efficiency of evolution.
Chimney1 wrote:
My apologies for the slightly unusual grammatical structure of the last sentence. Again, I should explain that this is a rhetorical device. I hope you can cope.
Now do you understand, moron?
No. I dont speak moron.

Neither do my friends, so I wouldnt understand when you speak moron.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#109700 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
You die and decay;
The thing which caused life keeps causing life;
Yet you are more efficient than whatever caused life to be?
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!
We can created life in a lab.

Our machines are more efficient than anything found in nature.

Yes, we are more efficient if your assertion were correct.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109701 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
Thus agreeing with me. Now what?
<quoted text>
All of which intelligence does.
<quoted text>
Amazing, isnt it?
<quoted text>
Yet species are still alive and surviving.
Isnt that just Miraculous?!!
<quoted text>
It also resulted in the "fine-tuning" of the universe is certain ways, to facilitate the emergence of structure and life too. Examples of this include but are not limited to:
a. ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism;
b. strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei;
c. elative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe;
d. ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass;
But you just conveniently forgot all that didnt you?
<quoted text>
I might agree, IF you admit that you are one of the retarded entities whos existence demonstrates the in-efficiency of evolution.
<quoted text>
No. I dont speak moron.
Neither do my friends, so I wouldnt understand when you speak moron.

There is no evidence for fine tuning. It is just another philosophical notion creotards believe because they think it mitigates the fact of evolution.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109702 Feb 3, 2013
spoonfuloFSugar20 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that's interesting! Be careful, there is a guy running around posing as different people and I think his name is Donald Edge, as I'm trying to recall. Just a heads up!
Thanks. Not that their chosen identities really matter to us. Most of those known to us who try to use sockpuppets on us are often found out. And if they aren't then we deal with their claims as they come anyway.

In the case of the guy who calls himself 'God Himself' though, we can tell from his writing style is pretty much new to us here on the evolution forum. That's not to say he hasn't engaged in sockpuppetry elsewhere though.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109703 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
Are you gay?
No. But that's irrelevant to the point.
God Himself wrote:
Read on, let me show you that you are not thinking straight.
Dude wrote:
"Efficiency" does not mean "it works". It means it works...
God Himself wrote:
See?
Is that logical?
Is that intellectually honest?
Is that fair thinking?
No, for here is the actual quote:
Dude wrote:
"Efficiency" does not mean "it works". It means it works efficiently.
Meaning that like most fundies you're willing to dishonestly ignore context to promote a point. I state that if you are required to do so it undermines your point. I also still maintain that your point is still irrelevant.
God Himself wrote:
Its not that we are not saying the same things: you only reject what I am saying for the simple fact that it relates to God.
THE FACT IS THAT EFFICIENCY DEMONSTRATES INTELLIGENCE.
And whenever you deny that; then nothing you will ever say or do or think will ever demonstrate that you are intelligent NO MATTER HOW EFFECTIVELY YOU DO THOSE THINGS.
Thats the sh!t hole you evos keep falling into. By denying the existence of God, you will eventually deny your humanity.
It is not a fact until you can demonstrate it. You can't. Does a cat deny its felinity if it denys the existence of God? Or what if it thinks the Gods are something different? It's still a feline. Because we named it so.
God Himself wrote:
Where have I stated that "it matters not whether it's efficient or not, just as long as it works."?
Here:
God Himself wrote:
And you can see no relationship between performance and efficiency?
To say that performance demonstrates intelligence ins not different from saying efficiency indicates intelligence.
You attempted to substitute efficiency with performance. I pointed out that a performance can be inefficient. You did not deny this, then went right back to arguing "efficiency=God". In the meantime I am still no closer to finding out who or what "God" is, where it is, what it looks like, how it did whatever it is you think it did, where it did it and when it did it.
God Himself wrote:
Wasnt that always my argument?
Sometimes.
God Himself wrote:
Efficiency does matter; but my argument is that this efficiency is not inherent in the subject(s), but is induced or caused by an agent.
An "intelligent" agent. However if stars are the most efficient fusion reactors we know then they must have had an intelligence behind them. Conveniently though you do not have to tell us anything about who it is, how it did it, where it did it or when it did it. Just that something did it, somehow, somewhere, at sometime because the sun is efficient.

However what happens if in the future we invent a fusion reactor that can perform more efficiently than stars then we can consider stars inefficient and therefore not designed. Or more likely efficiency will again be irrelevant and you will be back to claiming performance is enough, in which case the whole concept becomes unfalsifiable and therefore non-scientific due to a lack of comparisons since pretty much everything in the universe can be said to "perform" in some way. Ergo your apologetics amounts to little more than philosophical mastrubation.

Continued:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109704 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
If efficiency is not evidence of intelligence; then your most effective efforts will never be able to demonstrate your intelligence.
So what you end up with is Harvard and the rest, full of creative dunces.
Einstein and the rest demonstrated no intelligence; because the efficiency of the concepts that they formulated does not demonstrate intelligence.
Correct, the efficiency is not relevant, it's the mechanisms which went into figuring them out (biological neurological cognitive processes) which demonstrate intelligence. Hence Newton described gravity, Einstein described it a little better, and quantum physics described it more efficiently again. Yet all were intelligent. Gravity itself of course being an intelligent process because it involves a performance.

Coming soon: INTELLIGENT FALLING THEORY! That'll show those dunces at Harvard, right?
God Himself wrote:
Indeed, one fool makes many.
I dont have to have an issue with anything. The Concept of God, can embrace all ideas and types of thought.
Despite this you keep making baseless criticisms of scientific concepts. And when demonstrated you are then asked for a better alternative. You then simply appropriate the same scientific research, credit it to God and say that's how God did it because you are unable to even discuss the subject, much less provide any valid critiques. Stupidity and intellectual dishonesty on your part, all in the same breath.
God Himself wrote:
MY claim?
"The study of the origin of life on Earth or, more specifically, how life on Earth began from inanimate matter, is technically known as abiogenesis..." http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_li...
And this is what you get for relying on non-scientific websites by people who design websites for a living.

http://www.lukemastin.com/services.html

Is chemistry inanimate?
God Himself wrote:
You dont even know anything about science, do you?
Ah, that must be why you're talking apologetics for Jewish wizardry and I'm not.
God Himself wrote:
Right.
And anything that you are not "able to point out how that's done in an objective manner via the scientific method", is false and unscientific?
So WHATEVER is not testable or demonstrable by scientific method is non-existent and false and not true nor real; even though "reality" by definition, "includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible"?
No, that is not my claim. In fact I've argued specifically AGAINST that claim with a fundie atheist called Skippy for YEARS. I have not and never claimed that (a) God does not and cannot exist. In fact I am quite open to the possibility. Reality is what it is regardless of our current knowledge. There may be Klingons in Beta quadrant. There may not be Klingons in Beta quadrant. But so far there is no evidence. Hence no reason to consider it a valid claim.
God Himself wrote:
You would love to be able to reduce God to a metaphor wouldnt you?
The real God or the God humans describe? I merely pointed out the BEST you could do was demonstrate it as a metaphor. It cannot be reduced from a scientific definition you are unable to provide. As a practical definition for a genuine entity it is worthless. As a label for a being of worship around which humans formed cultures and religions, it works fine. But just because Vikings worshiped Thor doesn't mean it exists.

Continued:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109705 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
Godmagic is not invalidated just because some fundies proposing Biology as an alternative don't know the first thing about it either.
Yes, but since you don't know any more about it than we do (assuming it even exists) then it's not us who have a problem. It is YOUR claim after all.
God Himself wrote:
Why, didnt you say "" Tell that to the species that are still surviving?
See, YOU ARE PREDISPOSED TO ASSUMING THE NEGATIVE AS IT RELATES TO GOD.
Precisely. That's because YOU claimed it was EFFICIENT. I claim that a 99% FAILURE rate is NOT efficent. Of course the problem is that "efficiency" COULD be described as subjective - a plane is more efficient than a bird because it can fly faster. A bird is more efficient than a plane because it's much more maneuverable. Both are designed because they perform efficiently. QED.
God Himself wrote:
I dont have a problem with evolution.
Evolution is THE STUDY (not the fact, but the STUDY) "...of how living things have changed over time SINCE life FIRST AROSE..." [http://www.physicsoftheuniver se.com/topics_life.html]
While even God Himself spoke of how the earth would be transformed after the Eden incident (as such), I have no reason to take a stance AGAINST evolution theory.
As your "explanation" for everything is Goddidit with magic you have no reason to take a stance against any concept whatsoever, whether it be valid or not.(shrug)
God Himself wrote:
My problem is with dumb-@sses who think that "there is no need for God", is a conclusion regarding the role of God in the Natural world. Idiots!
Then worry not! It's NOT a conclusion regarding the role of God in the natural world, but a conclusion based on the complete and total utter lack of scientific evidence FOR it. That does not mean it does not exist. It does not even mean it's not essential. It just means that the concept is non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific. Therefore irrelevant to science, period.
God Himself wrote:
Show me the post where I wrote that.
Okay:
God Himself wrote:
FURTHERMORE, THE EFFICIENCY OF NATURAL PROCESSES DEMONSTRATES THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE AGENT(S) THAT ARE CONTROLLING THEM (while efficiency indicate intelligence).
You could have simply said: "The efficiency of nature indicates an intelligence behind it."

Instead you have effectively just said: "The efficiency of nature indicates an intelligence behind it while the efficiency of nature indicates an intelligence behind it."

This is in a post where you critiqued another poster for being "unintelligible".
God Himself wrote:
And even if I did write that; wouldnt you be able to make sense of it, seeing the obvious repetition?
Perhaps Mikey and his SCP idea could.

:-)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#109706 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
Thus agreeing with me. Now what?
<quoted text>
All of which intelligence does.
<quoted text>
Amazing, isnt it?
<quoted text>
Yet species are still alive and surviving.
Isnt that just Miraculous?!!
Subjectively speaking, yes, we could call it a miracle considering the inefficiency of the "design" process.
God Himself wrote:
It also resulted in the "fine-tuning" of the universe is certain ways, to facilitate the emergence of structure and life too. Examples of this include but are not limited to:
a. ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism;
b. strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei;
c. elative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe;
d. ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass;
But you just conveniently forgot all that didnt you?
There's nothing to forget. If universes exist it COULD be that our physics is the only one possible. OR it could be that there are countless other different configurations, in which case each is just as equally unlikely as each other. But we KNOW that IF there is a universe starting we know that ONE of those HAS to be an outcome. Would it still be "fine tuned" if the physics of the universe worked completely differently?

Wait a minute - you can't even demonstrate it was deliberately "tuned" to begin with, since you'll completely avoid providing us with any mechanisms or any evidence for your claims in the slightest.

So what was this whole thing about again?(shrug)
God Himself wrote:
I might agree, IF you admit that you are one of the retarded entities whos existence demonstrates the in-efficiency of evolution.
Let's see: spine originally from quadrupeds leading to lower back problems in old age, choking on our food, wisdom teeth, appendix susceptible to infection... wait. I'm describing TEH FALL, aren't I? In which case we still have an inefficiency of creation, like fallen angels, evil talking lizards, stupid childish humans, who were then tempted by the so-called "evil" lizard to eat from a tree that God decided to put within easy reach instead of on the other side of the planet. Or the galaxy. Or the universe.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109707 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
THE FACT IS THAT EFFICIENCY DEMONSTRATES INTELLIGENCE.
And whenever you deny that; then nothing you will ever say or do or think will ever demonstrate that you are intelligent NO MATTER HOW EFFECTIVELY YOU DO THOSE THINGS.
Thank you for your support.

Evolution is effective, but not efficient.

Therefore, by your own CAPS LOCK emphasised insistence, not intelligently driven.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#109708 Feb 3, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Precisely. That's because YOU claimed it was EFFICIENT.
GH's argument has become so confused, I can only assume he has forgotten whatever it was he rote learned from some Creatard book, and now he is presenting is arse-backwards!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min Chimney1 127,109
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 8 min Jaimie 175,444
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 26 min The Dude 17
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 1 hr tbrim21 13,575
More Theories to Disprove Creation 2 hr The Dude 40
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) Sun TurkanaBoy 994
Darwin on the rocks Sun TurkanaBoy 817

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE