(October 13, 2015 at 1:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Why?  Can you point to an example of design or purpose in that mechanism(s)?  You really only need one to justify a refusal to accept complete exclusion.  Shouldn't be too difficult.  What makes you think that teleology is a factor in biological evolution?

I was editing to provide examples that point convergent evolution.Wiki on Convergent Evolution

(October 13, 2015 at 1:43 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I don't believe in evolution; I accept the theories of common descent and natural selection based on empirical observations.

Oh... so you do believe in evolution then.

You were just equivocating the more general definition of "believe" with the specifically religious one and being pedantic to look superior to me when really you're just being silly

I accept it all too... which is why I believe it. I believe it but I don't "believe" it in a faithy-religiously bullshit way. I believe on evidence.

If someone asked me if I believed in evolution and I said "No" I would be lying. It's no use coming out later after they call me "Creatard idiot" and saying "Oh but I do accept it on evidence" lol.

Another helpful hint for Christians (my apologies if it's already been posted).

Stop insisting that you don't believe in magic. It proves your capacity for lying the moment the denial leaves your lips.

(October 13, 2015 at 2:00 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 13, 2015 at 1:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Why?  Can you point to an example of design or purpose in that mechanism(s)?  You really only need one to justify a refusal to accept complete exclusion.  Shouldn't be too difficult.  What makes you think that teleology is a factor in biological evolution?

I was editing to provide examples that point convergent evolution.Wiki on Convergent Evolution

NP.  Okay...so, what about convergent evolution leads you to the notion that teleology is involved?  If I have a round hole on a table, and I drop objects through it...it shouldn't surprise me to find that the majority of the objects underneath the table are round.  Why do flying things so commonly have wings - what explains this convergent evolution?  Wings allow flight, they work, here on this rock.  The wings are the round object, the environment is the hole.  Purpose?  Design?  Please, elaborate.

What makes you think otherwise? Your example is very simplictisc and I'm not even sure why you think it instructive.

Well...simply put, I don't assume otherwise, the evidence indicates otherwise.  The example was simple because convergent evolution isn't difficult to explain....it's a fairly instructive example...that you don't see that way might have something to do with your misunderstandings of evolution, convergent or otherwise (we are referencing teleology after all.....)...do you plan on elaborating, or a shit and run? I don't mind approaching it in a more detailed way, but I'm going to need to see participation before I waste the time. I need to know exactly what it is about convergent evolution that you feel might allow for teleology or imply teleology - or else I don't know what we're talking about......and the only way I can know that....is if you actually tell me, like I asked you to........

And what makes you believe you understand evolutionary theory any better than any other layman unless of course you're not a layman? You're certainly never given me pause to think that you have any special insight. But I'll humor your simplistic analogy with an equally simplistic one. Five arrows strike the center of a target. Chance or skill?

Arrows are not as good an analogy for random chance operating on a particular environment as dropping random objects toward a hole with a specific shape.

Incidentally, the octopus eye and the human eye, while convergent in the sense that they are both spherical devices with nerves connecting to the brain at the back, which allow for light to be focused and resolved into a visible image, are actually very different in the way they evolved. You should look it up if you want serious detail, but the short version is that the human optic nerve emerges from inside the eye, "in front of" the retina, and the gathered clusters then travel back out through the rear of the eye, creating a blind spot in the vision of each eye. Octopi do not have blind spots in their vision because their nerves run from the back of the retina and so the bundled optic nerve does not need to pass through the eye itself to reach the brain.

Both are examples of round balls found under a round hole, after random chance has tried a lot of different solutions that didn't fare as well under the pressures of Natural Selection (the environment; the round hole).

(October 11, 2015 at 11:17 pm)dyresand Wrote: If you are talking with a atheist being online or in person remember this.

1. Do not badger us about god and or jesus

2. Do no waste your time preaching to us  

3. Do not use hell as a means to make us believe  in what you do

4. We get that you want to save us from some external torment but don't bother.

5. Don't be a asshole  no one like christian assholes..

6. Atheists please  do not say we are atheists because we love to sin because on your end it makes you guys look like hypocrites

7. Don't say were immoral because on your end it looks bad if you need the bible to give you morals.

No, I listen to God not you!
Then you might throw this
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Romans 13
You’re not the rule maker around here and even if you were and then you the (government) asks us to do something that is in direct disobedience to God’s Word, we are to disobey the government in faithful confidence of the Lord’s power to protect us.
So does mean that  I will be disobeying Romans 13?
Certainly not!

---

If leaders lie, cheat, steal and evidence corruption, are Christians “off the hook” in their requirement to obey them? Must their conduct always command respect? Are individuals free to decide who is, and who is not, worthy of honor?
Christ answered these questions when He gave His disciples important instruction about the hypocrisy and terrible conduct of certain religious leaders who held power over the Jews: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not you after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers” (Matt. 23:2-4).
Regardless of how leaders conduct themselves, either in their personal lives or in carrying out their official duties, they must be obeyed. But their ungodly examples are not to be copied. Source: http://rcg.org/articles/scstga.html

---

Since both Rythym and Rocket think sieves are a sufficient analogy, then I guess I must understand how either of you apply it. If I wanted to sort small objects I suppose I could design a seive tailored to sort out the shape and sizes I wanted. I take it that you think the hole is random too. Or maybe I could shave down some of the objects before shaking the box. And where did the seive come from in the first place? But my analogy isn't really any better or worse which is why I put it forward.

All I am saying is that, at this time I do not think it has been adequately demonstrated that chance mutations produce enough perfectly timed beneficial features to make the vast number of highly precise biological changes required to account for speciation in the time since life appeared 6000 years ago. (Just joking about the 6000 years). That doesn't mean that some outside force meddled with the process. It could be that Nature as a whole conforms to self-organizing principles that steer chance, built into the system as it were.

The theory of pure chance seems to me unfalsifiable in the sense that someone would have to prove a negative, I.e. the lack of a teleological principle. The theory has parsimony on its side and even that's debatable. Its very easy to say that chance was sufficient to do the job without considering the actual odds which as far as I can see, those odds are extremely difficult to calculate.