By chance?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Is this more believable for YJ?

He probably thinks Kipling’s ‘How The Elephant Got His Trunk’ is a biology text.

Boru

[Yukon_Jack]

His contentions are answered several times in this thread. Now he is just somping on the ground saint "ain't so". Better stop feeding him.

Exactly.  He's following the lead of countless other creationists who, when presented with actual facts and an accurate description of biology, responds with the time-honoured tactic of shutting his eyes, sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting, 'I CAN'T HEAR YOU I CAN'T HEAR YOU I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!'

Boru

The facts are that the biological world is replete w machines that function w obvious design and you attribute it all to chance luck, that is basically your only explanation to go on.
Did my Rushmore happen by chance?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Exactly.  He's following the lead of countless other creationists who, when presented with actual facts and an accurate description of biology, responds with the time-honoured tactic of shutting his eyes, sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting, 'I CAN'T HEAR YOU I CAN'T HEAR YOU I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!'

Boru

The facts are that the biological world is replete w machines that function w obvious design and you attribute it all to chance luck, that is basically your only explanation to go on.
Did my Rushmore happen by chance?

No one who understands how evolution operates attributes it to luck.

I don’t know, I’ve never seen your Rushmore. Sign up for Area 69 and I’ll risk a look.

Boru

[Abaddon_ire]

Exactly.  He's following the lead of countless other creationists who, when presented with actual facts and an accurate description of biology, responds with the time-honoured tactic of shutting his eyes, sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting, 'I CAN'T HEAR YOU I CAN'T HEAR YOU I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!'

Boru

The facts are that the biological world is replete w machines that function w obvious design and you attribute it all to chance luck, that is basically your only explanation to go on.
Did my Rushmore happen by chance?

Course not. Rushmore has a recorded history. I find it demeans you to mindlessly wheel out such a banal example. It makes you appear to be a twit. Perhaps that is your intention.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's always amusing to find people who think that biological processes' ability to produce some of the effects of design is a bug, rather than a feature.

[Abaddon_ire]

It's always amusing to find people who think that biological processes' ability to produce some of the effects of design is a bug, rather than a feature.

You are alluding to emergent behaviour of simple systems.

So far I have tried to avoid that. If YJ cannot grok the simple mechanics, there is precisely fuck all chance he will understand that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Emergent behaviors are cool - but what I'm commenting on is a simpler bit of what contributes to that. Evolutionary biology would have us believe that nature provides both a testbed for iterative "designs", and a method of retaining successful designs. If this is not true, then evolutionary biology cannot be true.

Exclaiming in wide eyed wonder that life appears exactly as it is expected to appear in evolutionary theory is hardly a condemnation of evolutionary theory. As Camus (iirc -here or there? these chucklethreads bleed together for me) has already pointed out - it's just the acknowledgement that the products of intentional design and the products of other orderly processes can have meaningful similarities. Might have something to do with how they're both orderly processes...or something.

[Abaddon_ire]

Emergent behaviors are cool - but what I'm commenting on is a simpler bit of what contributes to that.  Evolutionary biology would have us believe that nature provides both a testbed for iterative "designs", and a method of retaining successful designs.  If this is not true, then evolutionary biology cannot be true.  

Exclaiming in wide eyed wonder that life appears exactly as it is expected to appear in evolutionary theory is hardly a condemnation of evolutionary theory.  As Camus (iirc -here or there? these chucklethreads bleed together for me) has already pointed out - it's just the acknowledgement that the products of intentional design and the products of other orderly processes can have meaningful similarities.  Might have something to do with how they're both orderly processes...or something.

And thus the gaps into which a god can be inserted get ever smaller. It irritates me sometimes.

[The Architect Of Fate]

So more of Jackie's Credulity and false comparisons

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The facts are that the biological world is replete w machines that function w obvious design and you attribute it all to chance luck, that is basically your only explanation to go on.
Did my Rushmore happen by chance?

"obvious design" means "observational bias" to the real world.