(November 5, 2013 at 12:41 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: OK, Snowtracks, let's say for the sake of argument that you, Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and all other creationists proved that evolution was false.

The thing is, we don't even have to stipulate that. If theists could produce god, then everything else simply falls into place. Trying to figure out if evolution is true or if the universe "came from nothing" would be superfluous if we knew without a doubt that there is a god. "What if they prove evolution false" doesn't advance the discussion, because they don't have to do that in order to "prove god true." You would think it would be easier to do the latter in any case. It would seem to be the simplest and most effective path.

The only reason I mention that is because 99%* of all creationist arguments are attempts to tear down evolutionary theory. Unfortunately after that, they have nothing. If science discovered that evolutionary theory was completely false, we'd be looking for an alternative theory to replace it with, not "Goddidit."


*The other 1% is argument from design, which still doesn't prove that the Judeo-Christian God exists and is the creator of the entire universe.

(November 4, 2013 at 9:01 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: @snowtracks

I think it's probably more frustration. You know, what with the whole eye thing being debunked. And yet creationists keep bringing it up over and over again. There's only so many times a person can explain before their patience wears out.

Since you possess a creationist world view, perhaps you could answer a question for me. Why do creationists think that biology is like lego?

brought up the eye, the optic nerve, the brain - the reason for the 3 is that they can't exist singularly: for instance the brain setting there pulsating by itself with thoughts, one being - would be good to see what's around here. it's all or nothing simultaneously for biosystem that are interconnected.

---

(November 5, 2013 at 1:56 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: The only reason I mention that is because 99%* of all creationist arguments are attempts to tear down evolutionary theory. Unfortunately after that, they have nothing. If science discovered that evolutionary theory was completely false, we'd be looking for an alternative theory to replace it with, not "Goddidit."


*The other 1% is argument from design, which still doesn't prove that the Judeo-Christian God exists and is the creator of the entire universe.

what about looking at it this way hypothetically: if God exist, the other things makes sense.

---

(November 5, 2013 at 1:50 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(November 5, 2013 at 12:41 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: OK, Snowtracks, let's say for the sake of argument that you, Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and all other creationists proved that evolution was false.

The thing is, we don't even have to stipulate that. If theists could produce god, then everything else simply falls into place. Trying to figure out if evolution is true or if the universe "came from nothing" would be superfluous if we knew without a doubt that there is a god. "What if they prove evolution false" doesn't advance the discussion, because they don't have to do that in order to "prove god true." You would think it would be easier to do the latter in any case. It would seem to be the simplest and most effective path.

The fbi profiler methodology which was started by john douglas is that they look at the evidence and work backwards for the identity. seems like a reasonable approach to be used here.

Can snowtracks name another living evolutionary biologist besides Dawkins without Googling it?

C'mon, snowtracks. Be honest. Name one other evolutionary biologist, WITHOUT GOOGLING.

(November 5, 2013 at 8:56 pm)snowtracks Wrote: brought up the eye, the optic nerve, the brain - the reason for the 3 is that they can't exist singularly: for instance the brain setting there pulsating by itself with thoughts, one being - would be good to see what's around here. it's all or nothing simultaneously for biosystem that are interconnected.

So, when I posted a few sentences on how these things developed, you just ignored them? Or are you lying, right now? Asshole, or idiot: which is it, Snowy?

Besides, the three wouldn't just pop into existence fully formed either, you buffoon: the brain and the eye developed in concert. As I've mentioned previously, it isn't a question of brain and then eye and then optic nerve to connect them; all developments within the body are informed, in terms of their success or failure, by the other parts of the body. The eye begins as light sensitive cells, which are good for sensing danger in a general sense. Then in certain cases those cells cup, and now you've got directional light, and so on, and so forth. You can read all about this in science books, which it's clear you've never even touched.

I wonder what your excuse will be next.

Quote:The fbi profiler methodology which was started by john douglas is that they look at the evidence and work backwards for the identity. seems like a reasonable approach to be used here.

It would be, if you'd bothered to look at the actual evidence before using your method. The problem is, you haven't extended even the smallest of effort toward actually studying the theory you're discarding out of hand.

(November 5, 2013 at 8:56 pm)snowtracks Wrote: The fbi profiler methodology which was started by john douglas is that they look at the evidence and work backwards for the identity. seems like a reasonable approach to be used here.

That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is looking at the evidence of a crime, pointing a finger at an innocent person and then basing your accusation on "you can't prove he didn't do it."

(November 5, 2013 at 8:56 pm)snowtracks Wrote: The fbi profiler methodology which was started by john douglas is that they look at the evidence and work backwards for the identity. seems like a reasonable approach to be used here.

What? Profiling comes from many years of studies in criminal psychology and behavioral analisys, e.g has a empirical based methodology, meaning that previous cases of criminals serve as a starting point in order to tell investigators where to look first. It also focus on human behavioral patterns. Gods are not human and do not fall into the scope of profiling.

It might be fun for you to cast doubt in anything that doesn't conform to your religious views, but the fact still remains that it is you making the claims of a super sky fairy that designed everything. It falls to you to put up or shut the fuck up.

(November 5, 2013 at 8:56 pm)snowtracks Wrote: brought up the eye, the optic nerve, the brain - the reason for the 3 is that they can't exist singularly: for instance the brain setting there pulsating by itself with thoughts, one being - would be good to see what's around here. it's all or nothing simultaneously for biosystem that are interconnected.

Keep playing with that lego, snowy

It all comes down to teenage pridefull behaviour. Religionists go 'all in' their belief to the point that they will soil their intellectual honesty in order to keep their illusion of knowing something. They know shit, and instead of trying to get more knowledge, they stick to their vaunted religion like pigs wearing the finest clothing, just because their belief can't be falsified. If pride was indeed a deadly sin like christians like to portray, they would all be dead by now. Alas, there is no deadly sin of pride, just plain old stupidity.