(May 25, 2013 at 6:36 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Trying to evade my refutation.

No, you're just not even talking about what you think you're talking about. It'd be the same if you started talking about the cheesemaking process; my not addressing that claim doesn't suddenly mean you're right. It just means you're an idiot who can't even muster the information to be wrong in the correct subject.

Quote:Yes, it will take hundreds of generations (if it is UN-intelligent)

More. Many more generations than that.

Quote:but as we consider our self intelligent, then we should replicate it in few months.
If it will take from you the same time, then you are as-intelligent (Stupid) as the process.

So, what you're essentially saying is that replicating the process at the same rate as nature... does not prove that it happens in nature. Fuck, you're dumb...

Oh, by the way, is this engineered differently enough for you?

Are you going to answer my question, "Scholar?" How much research into actual peer reviewed papers have you done to come to your conclusions?

(May 25, 2013 at 6:52 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:Yes, it will take hundreds of generations (if it is UN-intelligent)

More. Many more generations than that.

Can you give an example in numbers
for example how many generation it took to develop an Eye and how many stages of development did it require.

Quote:So, what you're essentially saying is that replicating the process at the same rate as nature... does not prove that it happens in nature.

No, it means that it may happened in nature but it must be very intelligent.
for example if I brought to you a stone statue and told you that it was created by weathering and erosion sculpting an existing natural rock in five minutes, you would not believe me because you will need (a month) to do it (with your intelligence)
but If I said it was created over billions of years, you may believe me because you can outperform the UN-intilligent process.

Quote:Oh, by the way, is this engineered differently enough for you?

We can change species, has nothing to do with "UN-Intelligent" evolution, the max that you can prove is that Evolution may happened.

Quote:Are you going to answer my question, "Scholar?" How much research into actual peer reviewed papers have you done to come to your conclusions?

Over 7 years of research and about 100 articles.

(May 25, 2013 at 7:36 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Can you give an example in numbers
for example how many generation it took to develop an Eye and how many stages of development did it require.

The evolutionary timescale is many millions of years. Here's your answer about the eye.

Quote:No, it means that it may happened in nature but it must be very intelligent.

You haven't demonstrated that at all.

Quote:for example if I brought to you a stone statue and told you that it was created by weathering and erosion sculpting an existing natural rock in five minutes, you would not believe me because you will need (a month) to do it (with your intelligence)

No, I wouldn't believe you because five minutes isn't enough time for erosion to be enacted. And I'd recognize that my inability to envision a natural explanation doesn't mean there's a supernatural one, and also that my inability to do something doesn't mean nature is similarly incapable of it.

Quote:but If I said it was created over billions of years, you may believe me because you can outperform the UN-intilligent process.

No, I'd believe you because that's consistent with what's observed in nature, to a point.

Quote:We can change species, has nothing to do with "UN-Intelligent" evolution, the max that you can prove is that Evolution may happened.

Why did you ask for it if you're then going to turn around and say it doesn't count? Shift the goalposts a little more, "Scholar."

Quote:Over 7 years of research and about 100 articles.

Prove it.

All those articles from Religious Institutions, which were never peer review. The creationist use the complexity of the eye for their example (most creationist that use that example are Christians). Islam is again stilling from the Christians. It is never ending.

Allah is a shitty designer.


And he eats pork.

(May 25, 2013 at 4:58 am)Dragonetti Wrote: I am guessing god had something to do with the coin landing on its side?

But, the coin is man made!

So is "god."

OH MY GOD WE HAVE EYES.

Checkmate, evolution.

(May 25, 2013 at 11:40 am)Psykhronic Wrote: OH MY GOD WE HAVE EYES.

Checkmate, evolution.

Y'know, your avatar really makes that first sentence work.

Bahaha, thanks for pointing that out

The fact that this is supposedly the third time he's proven intelligent design is even more hilarious.