 | | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Isn't that something like comparing an individual's ability to reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare from memory with a fleet of monkeys being able to randomly bang them out on typewriters? (...) It would be more significant if he'd (...) (20 years ago, 18-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Your analogy is a rather poor one, because you imply that either sentient capabilities are required to assemble a complex form directly from simple parts or a (complex) assembler would have to be randomly generated. First, most abiogenesis (...) (20 years ago, 19-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) For a thorough debunking of the "infinite monkeys" myth, I recommend Richard Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker," which gives a great explanation of why that model is flawed as a representation of evolution or of the origins of life. Beyond (...) (20 years ago, 19-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Surely the models can be allowed to evolve. Then models with God as the designer can be compared with models without a designer and the results compared. i.e. you can determine for yourself whether it makes more sense for there to be a God who (...) (20 years ago, 19-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Evolution... it never ends
|
|
(...) You are free to suggest any model or theory you want. But if you want to challenge an existing scientific model, then you need to present an alternative SCIENTIFIC model. So far no one has presented a scientific model for intelligent design. (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution... it never ends
|
|
(...) Forgive me if I'm wrong, but is the point of Creation (and religion) not that it needs no "SCIENTIFIC model"? It is a simple solution to a complex question: “What am I ?”. (...) My body hair, nipples, appendix and coccyx all appear to have no (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) In order to test your suggestion, I must ask that you present to me something in nature that, in your judgment, was not designed by God and also something that, in your view, *was* designed by God. Are you able to provide examples of each? If (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution... it never ends
|
|
Do you have a "not so well designed" case (...) I do, teeth! if they were well designed they would be made of something that is not affected by food! Tim (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution... it never ends
|
|
(...) They are all (excepting nipples) vestigal remnants of things that were useful in the past (warmth,digestion,tail). The original need for those things has disapeared and in fact they have proved better not to have so natural selection has bred (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution... it never ends
|
|
(...) Of course, which is why such "solutions" have no place being taught in a public science classrooms. They belong in church instead. Keep in mind this is pretty much an issue being driven by Creationists - not all religious people in general. (...) (20 years ago, 20-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
