|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
Why not? If you see a bunch of boulders strewn across the landscape, don't you doubt that the arrangement was designed?
My point is that the notion of a designer can not be dismissed by some perceived inefficiency in the nature of reproduction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mike the wiz writes:
So you're forced to fall back on the position that the "creator" didn't create everything.
Attenborough argues that God wouldn't create a parasite for the human eye, but that's the classic failure to fail to understand the creationist position, we don't believe God created parasites for those reasons, or malfunctions on purpose, any more than we believe He invented mad cow disease.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
ProtoTypical writes:
In this tread we're contemplating reproduction - which presupposes that there is something to reproduce. "Why" there is something to reproduce is irrelevant.
I certainly do but when I get to contemplating why there are boulders and landscapes the question is less clear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
ProtoTypical writes:
Why would a designer design an airplane that crashes 99 per cent of the time? Of course it matters.
Why wouldn't a designer do it exactly that way? Does it matter if the failure rate is high? ProtoTypical writes:
The whole premise of the ID movement is that if something "looks designed" it must be. Why not use the same argument against ID? If it looks like nobody with half a brain would design it that way, it most likely wasn't designed.
How can you be critical of an arrangement if you don't know what the arrangement is for?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
Indeed. We know that the argument for design is faulty. Your argument is faulty for the same reason.
If they are the same argument then they are both faulty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
You're going to have to be more specific. "Nuh-uh," is not a satisfactory response. No. Jar's argument is faulty for the same reason. I've shown that your argument is the same argument that IDist use, that has been refuted umpteen times. If you think that also impugns jar's argument, you'll have to explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
The point that you're arguing against seems to be a strawman.
This is jar's argument exactly or at least the point that I am arguing against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
You can lick salt off your own skin. The right balance of salt in your body confers a survival advantage. How does 0.05% of a mammary system confer a survival advantage? A lot of animals groom each other and eat the bugs. That's a double survival advantage: a nutritional supplement for one and a control of parasites for the other. There are even symbiotic relationships between different species. It's a pretty simple principle really. Every little bit helps. So anything a mother produces that can help her baby survive is an evolutionary advantage. A couple of mutations here and there can make a big difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
Did you read my post at all? There's nothing there that requires any imagination; it's all observed fact: salt, grooming, symbiosis. It's a very simple fact that many species get nutrition from something on another organism's body.
If I simply give spare change to the creative homeless guy spinning his sign on the corner, and if i am doing it to alleviate my conscience, perhaps I am not doing enough. Dredge writes:
Yes, it has to be dumbed down pretty far for creationists to understand it.
Darwinists have to dumb-down very complex processes in order to make them seem plausible. Dredge writes:
Science will survive with or without dumb creationists. It survived dumb flat-earthers, didn't it? There's a survival advantage to intelligence.
Without this vital concession, junk science has no chance at all of surviving.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
You're misunderstanding what verification means. It's true that we can't dig up Napoleon, resuscitate him and see if he conquers Europe again - but there are other ways to verify his existence and his actions. Maybe you should think about why you accept Napoleon before you reject evolution so casually.
The trouble with many evolutionary "explanations" is that they are untestable hypotheses relating to events that cannot be verified as factual....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Eyewitness evidence is the worst there is. There is far more physical evidence for transitionals than there is for Napoleon.
This is a very poor analogy. There are thousands of eye-witness accounts of Napoleon's existence. How many eye-witnesses accounts are there that describe mammals evolving from a reptile?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Well, honest inquiry is more likely to get you to the truth than repeating inane nonsense.
Oh, I get it ... an honest creationist is one who gets converted to evolution and the creationists who don't are all dishonest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
If all you can say is, "Nuh uh," you don't have much credibility. Tell us why they're bad ideas.
Oh dear, that's two bad ideas in a row from you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
That's your theme song, isn't it? My dad used to say about people like you, "He learned nothing and forgot nothing."
I don't want to know ...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024