Evolution

[Amarok]

No, I just asked for one iota of evidence. But I know that's already asking too much.

No just play dumb, create strawman, and maintain intellectual laziness . You don't have slightest interest in evidence . 

If I were an intelligent designer, I'd make the world the way God in the first place.
I would allow perfect freedom, and cater for mistakes, organise compensation for errors and consequences, and finally get rid of the scum who insist on evil.

Then your as stupid as he is .

[Banned]

If you have been following this thread, you would have noticed that I never requested a library or a dramatic speech, but just one example of tested evidence for evolution.

I know that's asking too much.

I gave you many, had you risked straining your finger to follow the links, POE.

The slightest evidence must have been too lengthy for you to write.

But you seem to have plenty of energy to reveal your bitterness, as if I am supposed to resolve your problems.

---

Theists are as blind to the evidence of evolution as they unreasonably claim atheists are blind to the "evidence" of god's existence.

No one has asked you to make a soap box speech, just show one example of a test that proves evolution.

[Ravenshire]

I gave you many, had you risked straining your finger to follow the links, POE.

The slightest evidence must have been too lengthy for you to write.

But you seem to have plenty of energy to reveal your bitterness, as if I am supposed to resolve your problems.

---

Theists are as blind to the evidence of evolution as they unreasonably claim atheists are blind to the "evidence" of god's existence.

No one has asked you to make a soap box speech, just show one example of a test that proves evolution.

And, now you're just trolling, and being reported for such, POE.

[Amarok]

The slightest evidence must have been too lengthy for you to write. 

To which a pethera of denials will be issued and more of your ignorance demonstrated 

But you seem to have plenty of energy to reveal your bitterness, as if I am supposed to resolve your problems.

Lol behold his go to attack when he's losing . Call you bitter and declare your somehow defective . Projection?

 No one has asked you to make a soap box speech, just show one example of a test that proves evolution.

To which a pethera of denials will be issued and more of your ignorance demonstrated

---

[I_am_not_mafia]

The original point was that there is a third alternative that is neither intelligent design nor randomness.  Of course self-organizing systems make use of causes.  Causes are ordered patterns of behavior, the exact opposite of randomness.  And self-organization bootstraps the order inherent in natural causes to create ordered systems out of disordered matter.   No intelligence needed.  Your response was that self-organizing processes do not exist.  Pointing out that self-organized systems make use of natural causes doesn't in any way answer Mathilda's point that the order resulting from self-organization is neither intelligent design nor happenstance.   Or are you going to simply beg the question by asserting that order exists because God exists?  If so, why bother with the claim that you have evidence that things are intelligently designed?  If you're just going to assert that without evidence, then you rightly deserve to fuck off.

---

If you think that order comes from chaos, then you might like to consider that there is no such thing as chaos.

Too little energy and you just have order. Too much energy and you just have chaos. Interesting behaviour comes from the edge of chaos.

This is where you get life and intelligence. Where there is ordered movement, free energy can be more efficiently minimised and entropy maximised.

---

Self-organising processes find the path of least resistance by settling into the nearest stable state.

No intelligent direction or design required.

Should we really refer to an oxygen molecule as a "self" because it combines with hydrogen? I think we should reserve "self" for processes that require a theory of mind.

I get your point about it being an anthropomorphic term that assumes arbitrary boundaries in systems which are part of a larger whole.

But then you could also say the same thing about animals and humans who also have a theory of mind.

---

Conflating mass production and religious creation?!? I'm calling POE. There's no way this guy is this dumb,

If you are correct, and you could well be, this could mean that Little Rik marks the exact point where sincere meets Poe.

I'm already considering his posts in a new light just thinking about this.

---

Yes we are.Pointing out that evolution as a scientific  theory was only figured out  recently . Has no bearing on the fact that it happened and has always happened and continues to happen. How you managed to interpret my comment otherwise is beyond me.

Yeah what the religionists never understand is that the evidence comes first and this leads to the theory. Otherwise it would be a hypothesis.

[Whateverist]

Self-organisation.

No such thing.

You know Mathilda, that may well be true in his own case. Leastwise he hasn't managed to organize what information he has encountered in any useful manner.

[Amarok]

The original point was that there is a third alternative that is neither intelligent design nor randomness.  Of course self-organizing systems make use of causes.  Causes are ordered patterns of behavior, the exact opposite of randomness.  And self-organization bootstraps the order inherent in natural causes to create ordered systems out of disordered matter.   No intelligence needed.  Your response was that self-organizing processes do not exist.  Pointing out that self-organized systems make use of natural causes doesn't in any way answer Mathilda's point that the order resulting from self-organization is neither intelligent design nor happenstance.   Or are you going to simply beg the question by asserting that order exists because God exists?  If so, why bother with the claim that you have evidence that things are intelligently designed?  If you're just going to assert that without evidence, then you rightly deserve to fuck off.

---

If you think that order comes from chaos, then you might like to consider that there is no such thing as chaos.

Too little energy and you just have order. Too much energy and you just have chaos. Interesting behaviour comes from the edge of chaos.

This is where you get life and intelligence. Where there is ordered movement, free energy can be more efficiently minimised and entropy maximised.

---

Should we really refer to an oxygen molecule as a "self" because it combines with hydrogen? I think we should reserve "self" for processes that require a theory of mind.

I get your point about it being an anthropomorphic term that assumes arbitrary boundaries in systems which are part of a larger whole.

But then you could also say the same thing about animals and humans who also have a theory of mind.

---

Conflating mass production and religious creation?!? I'm calling POE. There's no way this guy is this dumb,

If you are correct, and you could well be, this could mean that Little Rik marks the exact point where sincere meets Poe.

I'm already considering his posts in a new light just thinking about this.

---

Yes we are.Pointing out that evolution as a scientific  theory was only figured out  recently . Has no bearing on the fact that it happened and has always happened and continues to happen. How you managed to interpret my comment otherwise is beyond me.

Yeah what the religionists never understand is that the evidence comes first and this leads to the theory. Otherwise it would be a hypothesis.

[Silver]

No one has asked you to make a soap box speech, just show one example of a test that proves evolution.

Enjoy:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...stors.html

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We could have gone with the bacteria that lives on nylon.

[chimp3]

• My Posts
  

---

---

Should we really refer to an oxygen molecule as a "self" because it combines with hydrogen? I think we should reserve "self" for processes that require a theory of mind.

I get your point about it being an anthropomorphic term that assumes arbitrary boundaries in systems which are part of a larger whole.

But then you could also say the same thing about animals and humans who also have a theory of mind.

---

i was speaking about animals that have a theory of mind. Under which other states should we use the term "self"?