Evolution is mathematically impossible

[OldWiseGuy]

No it wasnt.

It just went over your head.

As did mine yours.

 

[VirOptimus]

As did mine...yours.

-sigh- no, it didnt. It was very simplistic.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

-sigh- no, it didnt. It was very simplistic.

Simple yes, simplistic no.

 

[pitabread]

The foundation of my reality of course is belief in God and salvation by grace through belief, followed by living by Godly principles as revealed in God's word and by the Holy Spirit (to the extent that I am able). This knowledge is translated and applied to all or most daily activities, including all or most relationships and interactions, including those on these forums.

What is your stance on gay marriage?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What is your stance on gay marriage?

I don't think too much about that.

 

[pitabread]

I don't think too much about that.

Fair enough.

 

[Ophiolite]

I was just laying the foundation, not the details, which would seem mundane to most.

That doesn't look anything like a foundation to me. That looks like the end point of a process combining, to a greater or lesser extent, contemplation, investigation, research, reflection, revelation, analysis, synthesis, etc. Ultimately it comes across as an opinion. I thought you intended to layout the ground rules for how one should arrive at ones worldview, not simply a concise summary of that view.

At the foundation is doing things the right way, then going above and beyond that; fully exercising the moral imperative, as I see it, to the extent that I am able.

No. Doing things the right way (whatever that means) has to be established as appropriate from the actual foundation. You seem to be confusing the first course of bricks with the concrete slab on which they are laid. You lack the concrete slab and we all know what happens to a house built on sand.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Doing things the right way (whatever that means) has to be established as appropriate from the actual foundation.

That is correct.

The (my) foundation is the desire to do good for yourself and others.

Doing good is the structure built upon that foundation.

Revelation (in your case, education) is the knowledge that facilitates the process.

 

[Ophiolite]

That is correct.

The (my) foundation is the desire to do good for yourself and others.

Doing good is the structure built upon that foundation.

Revelation (in your case, education) is the knowledge that facilitates the process.

OK. I am not making myself clear. The desire to do good is not a foundation. Their has to be a basis upon which you arrived at the conclusion that the desire to good was appropriate. That is the foundation. All you are saying is that you decided - apparently out of the blue - that you wanted to do good. Why? The answer to that, if you answer it accurately and honestly, is your foundation. So what is you actual foundation?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OK. I am not making myself clear. The desire to do good is not a foundation. Their has to be a basis upon which you arrived at the conclusion that the desire to good was appropriate. That is the foundation. All you are saying is that you decided - apparently out of the blue - that you wanted to do good. Why? The answer to that, if you answer it accurately and honestly, is your foundation. So what is you actual foundation?

It actually is "out of the blue".

When God calls you, and you accept the call, He places the Holy Spirit in your heart and in your mind. The Spirit leads you, through revelation, from then on to desire do good. This is my foundation. Everything is built on that foundation.

 

[Ophiolite]

It actually is "out of the blue".

When God calls you, and you accept the call, He places the Holy Spirit in your heart and in your mind. The Spirit leads you, through revelation, from then on to desire do good. This is my foundation. Everything is built on that foundation.

Then we have nothing further to discuss. A foundation based upon a perception that one has been called is ephemeral and nonsensical.

The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,

The solemn temples, the great globe itself—

Yea, all which it inherit—shall dissolve,

And like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind.

The neurology and psychology of such episodes has been observed, analysed and characterised. Plenty of atheists and agnostics have experienced the same call, but have had the objectivity to recognise it for what it is. There is a delightful deceit among believers that that was not a true calling.

As I said, nothing more to discuss, but don't expect me to attribute much (any) credence to views that arise from such a flimsy foundation. Although kudos for arriving, by the wrong route, at a honourable goal.

 

[xianghua]

So you're saying you conclude design because a pile of rocks cannot evolve? I'd say that's not how you conclude design for a pile of rocks.

But what about the rocks in the sand? They can't evolve either, but you're not sure if they're designed. If your yardstick is the impossibility of evolution, why don't you conclude design?

if i understand your point- there are some cases that we cant know for sure. but there are some cases that we do know for sure. a watch is one of these cases.

 

[xianghua]

In the case of biology, we don't have the same pre-existing knowledge of a designer building biological forms.

so according to this, if we will find a self replicating car- we cant conclude design since we never seen someone that build such a car?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then we have nothing further to discuss. A foundation based upon a perception that one has been called is ephemeral and nonsensical.

The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,

The solemn temples, the great globe itself—

Yea, all which it inherit—shall dissolve,

And like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind.

The neurology and psychology of such episodes has been observed, analysed and characterised. Plenty of atheists and agnostics have experienced the same call, but have had the objectivity to recognise it for what it is. There is a delightful deceit among believers that that was not a true calling.

As I said, nothing more to discuss, but don't expect me to attribute much (any) credence to views that arise from such a flimsy foundation. Although kudos for arriving, by the wrong route, at a honourable goal.

I didn't expect that from the start.

 

[pitabread]

if we will find a self replicating car

Just stop. I'm not discussing your silly fantasy cars.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

if i understand your point- there are some cases that we cant know for sure. but there are some cases that we do know for sure. a watch is one of these cases.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. This has been explained in great detail a number of times for you. At this stage there are 3 possible conclusions:
1. You understand but are dishonestly refusing to represent reality
2. You are simply a troll
3. You have a learning difficulty

Which is it? Only option 3 is an acceptable reason for your behaviour.

 

[tas8831]

I 'see' design by perusing anatomy books.

That is because you don't understand it.

The more I read the more I wonder how anyone cannot see purposeful design.

Saw a talk by Steve Gould in the early 1990s. It was on creationism. He went through some of the more common creationist arguments of the day - Morris' TAB crap, for example. He said something to the effect of 'If you understand a little science, you might find these arguments convincing. If you understand a lot of science, you see them for the nonsense they are.'

You are on that 'little science' side of the spectrum. Hence your laughably naive claims about the RLN and the like. As a trained anatomist, I found your anatomy-related claims almost childish in their depth, and the confidence you nevertheless exuded was a result of that ell-researched phenomenon, the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You are on that 'little science' side of the spectrum. Hence your laughably naive claims about the RLN and the like. As a trained anatomist, I found your anatomy-related claims almost childish in their depth, and the confidence you nevertheless exuded was a result of that ell-researched phenomenon, the Dunning-Kruger effect.

For a person of "low ability" I've done pretty well.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

As a trained anatomist...

You of all people should be able to see design in anatomy.

By the way, what does a "trained anatomist" do? If you are still studying anatomy it is clear that there is more to learn. If not I must assume that you know all there is to know about the subject.

I on the other hand, as a person of low ability, am constantly discovering and crafting new and better ways to do things. For example just today I improved the masking tape dispenser that I invented to take the frustrating curl out of the tape as it comes off the roll. Thousands, if not millions, of exasperated users will thank me (if I ever produce and sell it that is).

 

[Speedwell]

You of all people should be able to see design in anatomy.

Most people see awesome functional complexity, not design.