Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (9005 total)
55 online now:
AZPaul3, Hyroglyphx, jar, PaulK, vimesey (5 members, 50 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,216 Year: 12,964/23,288 Month: 689/1,527 Week: 128/240 Day: 17/10 Hour: 2/1

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.
ringo
Member
Posts: 18768
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 47 of 187 (810761)
06-01-2017 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dogmafood
05-31-2017 6:31 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

My point is that the notion of a designer can not be dismissed by some perceived inefficiency in the nature of reproduction.


Why not? If you see a bunch of boulders strewn across the landscape, don't you doubt that the arrangement was designed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dogmafood, posted 05-31-2017 6:31 PM Dogmafood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dogmafood, posted 06-01-2017 9:46 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18768
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 50 of 187 (810772)
06-01-2017 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by mike the wiz
06-01-2017 12:12 PM


mike the wiz writes:

Attenborough argues that God wouldn't create a parasite for the human eye, but that's the classic failure to fail to understand the creationist position, we don't believe God created parasites for those reasons, or malfunctions on purpose, any more than we believe He invented mad cow disease.


So you're forced to fall back on the position that the "creator" didn't create everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 06-01-2017 12:12 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Diomedes, posted 06-01-2017 2:30 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18768
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


(2)
Message 56 of 187 (810869)
06-02-2017 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dogmafood
06-01-2017 9:46 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

I certainly do but when I get to contemplating why there are boulders and landscapes the question is less clear.


In this tread we're contemplating reproduction - which presupposes that there is something to reproduce. "Why" there is something to reproduce is irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dogmafood, posted 06-01-2017 9:46 PM Dogmafood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dogmafood, posted 06-03-2017 7:34 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18768
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 63 of 187 (810968)
06-03-2017 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dogmafood
06-03-2017 7:34 AM


ProtoTypical writes:

Why wouldn't a designer do it exactly that way? Does it matter if the failure rate is high?


Why would a designer design an airplane that crashes 99 per cent of the time? Of course it matters.

ProtoTypical writes:

How can you be critical of an arrangement if you don't know what the arrangement is for?


The whole premise of the ID movement is that if something "looks designed" it must be. Why not use the same argument against ID? If it looks like nobody with half a brain would design it that way, it most likely wasn't designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dogmafood, posted 06-03-2017 7:34 AM Dogmafood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dogmafood, posted 06-03-2017 1:11 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18768
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 66 of 187 (810978)
06-03-2017 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dogmafood
06-03-2017 1:11 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

If they are the same argument then they are both faulty.


Indeed. We know that the argument for design is faulty. Your argument is faulty for the same reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dogmafood, posted 06-03-2017 1:11 PM Dogmafood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dogmafood, posted 06-03-2017 1:30 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18768
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 82 of 187 (811047)
06-04-2017 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dogmafood
06-03-2017 1:30 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

No. Jar's argument is faulty for the same reason.


You're going to have to be more specific. "Nuh-uh," is not a satisfactory response.

I've shown that your argument is the same argument that IDist use, that has been refuted umpteen times. If you think that also impugns jar's argument, you'll have to explain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dogmafood, posted 06-03-2017 1:30 PM Dogmafood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Dogmafood, posted 06-04-2017 8:23 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18768
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 85 of 187 (811146)
06-05-2017 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Dogmafood
06-04-2017 8:23 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

This is jar's argument exactly or at least the point that I am arguing against.


The point that you're arguing against seems to be a strawman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Dogmafood, posted 06-04-2017 8:23 PM Dogmafood has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18768
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 130 of 187 (822309)
10-22-2017 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dredge
10-21-2017 7:59 PM


Dredge writes:

How does 0.05% of a mammary system confer a survival advantage?


You can lick salt off your own skin. The right balance of salt in your body confers a survival advantage.

A lot of animals groom each other and eat the bugs. That's a double survival advantage: a nutritional supplement for one and a control of parasites for the other.

There are even symbiotic relationships between different species.

It's a pretty simple principle really. Every little bit helps. So anything a mother produces that can help her baby survive is an evolutionary advantage. A couple of mutations here and there can make a big difference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 7:59 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dredge, posted 10-22-2017 8:55 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18768
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 134 of 187 (822342)
10-23-2017 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Dredge
10-22-2017 8:55 PM


Dredge writes:

If I simply give spare change to the creative homeless guy spinning his sign on the corner, and if i am doing it to alleviate my conscience, perhaps I am not doing enough.


Did you read my post at all? There's nothing there that requires any imagination; it's all observed fact: salt, grooming, symbiosis. It's a very simple fact that many species get nutrition from something on another organism's body.

Dredge writes:

Darwinists have to dumb-down very complex processes in order to make them seem plausible.


Yes, it has to be dumbed down pretty far for creationists to understand it.

Dredge writes:

Without this vital concession, junk science has no chance at all of surviving.


Science will survive with or without dumb creationists. It survived dumb flat-earthers, didn't it? There's a survival advantage to intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Dredge, posted 10-22-2017 8:55 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18768
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 141 of 187 (822408)
10-24-2017 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Dredge
10-23-2017 10:49 PM


Dredge writes:

The trouble with many evolutionary "explanations" is that they are untestable hypotheses relating to events that cannot be verified as factual....


You're misunderstanding what verification means. It's true that we can't dig up Napoleon, resuscitate him and see if he conquers Europe again - but there are other ways to verify his existence and his actions. Maybe you should think about why you accept Napoleon before you reject evolution so casually.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Dredge, posted 10-23-2017 10:49 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Dredge, posted 10-26-2017 10:56 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18768
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 156 of 187 (822547)
10-27-2017 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Dredge
10-26-2017 10:56 PM


Dredge writes:

This is a very poor analogy. There are thousands of eye-witness accounts of Napoleon's existence. How many eye-witnesses accounts are there that describe mammals evolving from a reptile?


Eyewitness evidence is the worst there is. There is far more physical evidence for transitionals than there is for Napoleon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Dredge, posted 10-26-2017 10:56 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Dredge, posted 11-09-2017 2:40 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18768
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 157 of 187 (822549)
10-27-2017 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Dredge
10-26-2017 11:20 PM


Dredge writes:

Oh, I get it ... an honest creationist is one who gets converted to evolution and the creationists who don't are all dishonest.


Well, honest inquiry is more likely to get you to the truth than repeating inane nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Dredge, posted 10-26-2017 11:20 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18768
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 174 of 187 (823328)
11-09-2017 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Dredge
11-09-2017 2:40 AM


Dredge writes:

Oh dear, that's two bad ideas in a row from you.


If all you can say is, "Nuh uh," you don't have much credibility. Tell us why they're bad ideas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Dredge, posted 11-09-2017 2:40 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18768
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 175 of 187 (823329)
11-09-2017 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dredge
11-09-2017 2:50 AM


Dredge writes:

I don't want to know ...


That's your theme song, isn't it? My dad used to say about people like you, "He learned nothing and forgot nothing."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Dredge, posted 11-09-2017 2:50 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 11-09-2017 12:05 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020