- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,976
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Think back, you know it has, how could you possibly believe what you believe if it hadn't been tampered with?
You think science only has simple explanations for this? If you go to a butterfly expert and ask what happens, they'll just give you a few sentences and say, "That's literally all we know."
REALLY?
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...llars-transforming-butterflies-metamorphosis/
http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/animals-ecology/how-caterpillar-turn-butterfly-0534534/
https://askentomologists.com/2015/01/14/what-happens-inside-a-cocoon/
These sources just begin to scratch the surface of what we know, and they are all more detailed than what you posted.
I see lots of people in this very thread who are generous with their knowledge and genuine in their presentation.Ponder this.
I once was engaged in similar discussions on another site. My opinions attracted a group of four or five fellows who basically attacked every position I took, which puzzled me. At length I came across all of these fellow's 'stories' in other threads unrelated to the subjects we were arguing about.
What I discovered was that all of them had serious personal problems including health, finances, employment, marital, and relationship problems with their kids and others. In short they were a mess, and upon learning this lost all credibility with me.
When I said that I'm exceptional 'by any measure' I meant the usual measures that we measure our successes and failures by. Needless to say the aforementioned failures that these fellows suffered most certainly influenced their arguments and attitudes.
I suspect that I might find some of the same conditions here.
All this said I take no pleasure in the misfortune of others, or excessive pride in my own good fortune. I believe I am blessed in many areas where others are not, and I am very thankful.
Great information, thanks. But what are the chances (odds) of this phenomenon being self-directed (evolution) versus purposeful creation? Science has indeed witnessed the complexity, but then applies the same "and then a miracle happened" in the form of the ToE, as the 'intelligent' agent of the process.
The more complex a thing is the more likely there's an outside force at work.
Evolution requires variation if populations are to keep well adapted to their changing environments. This results in a range of shapes, sizes and behaviours. The majority will tend to conform to a norm or average, with outliers at either end of the scale (as in the 'normal distribution' and similar).True, but why? What makes some people dishonest and others not? How does evolution work in this regard?
Honestly I resent the idea that you just tar them all (bold, italics mine) as 'dishonest', despite your unfortunate experience in another forum.
But you have to have to be able to show that an outside force at work on a process if you want scientists to include it in their theories. Can you scientifically, measurably and demonstrably show that God has had a hand in a scientific process, which is not a Bible quote or an argument from incredulity?
Oh brother...I said "some", not "all".
Great information, thanks. But what are the chances (odds) of this phenomenon being self-directed (evolution) versus purposeful creation? Science has indeed witnessed the complexity, but then applies the same "and then a miracle happened" in the form of the ToE, as the 'intelligent' agent of the process.
The more complex a thing is the more likely there's an outside force at work.
Oh brother...
OldWiseGuy said: ↑
....There can be no 'honest' discussion because people, even (gasp) scientists, are so dishonest.....
Of course, this is assuming that it just popped into existence this way, instead of developing from other less complex things...
Irreducible complexity is a bad argument to use.
Ive been talking about that, and only that, ever since you wrote it.That wasn't the context that you replied to.
Ive been talking about that, and only that, ever since you wrote it.
You seem to want to disavow it by simply forgetting you wrote it. Fair enough.
Tell me about how you've been dishonest in this discussion.Au contraire. I stand by it, ergo;
Humans are dishonest.
Scientists are human.
Therefore,
Scientists are dishonest.
Of course it is! That's how evolution works! A mousetrap without the lock and trip makes a perfectly functional (if not a little bulky) tie clip too.Declaring that a mousetrap that is missing a part still can be used as a paperweight is hardly an argument against irreducible complexity.
Outside force or inside force; neither can be observed.
Declaring that a mousetrap that is missing a part still can be used as a paperweight is hardly an argument against irreducible complexity.
I wouldn't dream of it.
Instead, I'll show you this: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
Now, don't let me see you using irreducible complexity again, okay? Coz it's just dumb.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?