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.
I knew the answer but I wanted your answer, I don't have the beliefs you do.By the way, chief, notice when you answered your own question, you said:
Did that 'reflect badly on the reliability of your beliefs,' in your opinion?
No one is allowed to give vague answers to any question other than religious people, they don't have anything going for their position to begin with so allowances must be made, vague roundabout answers [if any] are expected and are par for the course.Or are you guys allowed to give standard vague answers, while expecting us to be super-specific?
For the believers in ID, what do you think designed everything and where did it come from?
Please don't give a vague answer because it will reflect badly on the reliability of your beliefs, better not to answer at all and just believe what you want to believe and leave it at that.
Caecotrophy, commonly known as coprophagy, is a specialized digestive strategy common in the Mammalian order Lagomorpha (rabbits, hares and pikas) and some species of rodents. Caecotrophy plays a central role in digestive physiology and consequently well-defined rhythmical patterns of feeding and excretion have been shown to occur. It is the ingestion of specially produced soft faecal pellets, which are usually produced at night in the domestic rabbit. It is similar to the chewing of cud in cattle, and is sometimes referred to as “pseudo-rumination”. However, the two processes are very different. The rabbit is much less efficient at digesting fibre. Microbial activity in the ruminant affects the food before it reaches the main regions of digestion and absorption, but microbial activity in the rabbit takes place on the undigested residues of food. In order to understand caecotrophy, a review of the rabbit’s digestive system is required....because Caecotrophy doesn´t involve chewing.
The point of this thread is to in regard to the Fine tuning and how that supports Intelligent design.For the believers in ID, what do you think designed everything and where did it come from?
Please don't give a vague answer because it will reflect badly on the reliability of your beliefs, better not to answer at all and just believe what you want to believe and leave it at that.
That's the problem it doesn't, it's two imagined ideas brought together each to support the other because neither will stand on their own, it's nonsense trying to back up nonsense, on top of that no one is prepared to say what either of them are thought to be, it's woo trying to explain woo, one fairy trying to help another fairy when neither fairy exists.The point of this thread is to in regard to the Fine tuning and how that supports Intelligent design.
After being excreted, they are eaten whole by the rabbit and redigested in a special part of the stomach. The pellets remain intact for up to six hours in the stomach;Caecotrophy, commonly known as coprophagy, is a specialized digestive strategy common in the Mammalian order Lagomorpha (rabbits, hares and pikas) and some species of rodents. Caecotrophy plays a central role in digestive physiology and consequently well-defined rhythmical patterns of feeding and excretion have been shown to occur. It is the ingestion of specially produced soft faecal pellets, which are usually produced at night in the domestic rabbit. It is similar to the chewing of cud in cattle, and is sometimes referred to as “pseudo-rumination”. However, the two processes are very different. The rabbit is much less efficient at digesting fibre. Microbial activity in the ruminant affects the food before it reaches the main regions of digestion and absorption, but microbial activity in the rabbit takes place on the undigested residues of food. In order to understand caecotrophy, a review of the rabbit’s digestive system is required.
http://www.nutrecocanada.com/docs/shur-gain---specialty/caecotrophy-in-rabbits.pdf
No, you don´t get to quote-mine and spread quartertruths and then declare the discussion over.Can we dispense with the off topic Bible critiques. You all can make a new thread just for that if you want to. Thanks.
Not responding.That's the problem it doesn't, it's two imagined ideas brought together each to support the other because neither will stand on their own, it's nonsense trying to back up nonsense, on top of that no one is prepared to say what either of them are thought to be, it's woo trying to explain woo, one fairy trying to help another fairy when neither fairy exists.
ID and fine tuning might exist in your mind but you can't tell anyone what it is so how are we supposed to discuss it?
it's like saying, for me God is real so lets discuss God, what are we discussing?
So? I underlined the part that makes your point invalid because it is considered even today to be similar to a cow chewing their cud. That is all I had to show. Now on with the real topic of the thread.After being excreted, they are eaten whole by the rabbit and redigested in a special part of the stomach. The pellets remain intact for up to six hours in the stomach;
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit#Diet_and_eating_habits)
and from your own source (wink!wink!):
Once the caecotrophes are formed they are removed directly from the anus and swallowed whole. They will lie in a mass in the stomach for 6 – 8 hours and then are broken down and go through the usual digestive processes.
I posted a clear refutation to your point.No, you don´t get to quote-mine and spread quartertruths and then declare the discussion over.
Of course not because it's too close to the truth which you abhor.Not responding.
Everyone here seems to believe there is a right and a wrong answer.No one is allowed to give vague answers to any question other than religious people,
Do a google search on the word: "evolution" and click on images and EVERYTHING will be someones artwork.No, it' not.
Claiming that most of the evidence is artwork is not seriuos.
Implying that evolutionist do not do math is not serious.
Yeah right. "They don´t chew it" means "they chew it". :facepalm:So? I underlined the part that makes your point invalid because it is considered even today to be similar to a cow chewing their cud.
Pink's high wire act is a lot better then that.Criss Angel?
That video has already been debunked by a children's cartoon.For something to have designed everything in space-time, logically it must have been, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and it must have unfathomable power. It must be personal as well because the fine tuning required for life to exist is intricate and precise. Also If we use reason, there is a philosophical law that says you cannot have an infinite regress. Aristotle stated, "At the unmoved mover." This means that there must be an original source, nothing before it - in this case, the uncaused, the timeless, the spaceless, the immaterial, the personal, the extremely powerful with intelligence beyond comprehension.
Lets consider, what fits into that description? I can only think of one.
What? Did you think there was no rationality behind why we believe? Tell me more about your double standards.
The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God; all his thoughts are, “There is no God.” ~ Ps 10.4
OK lots of interesting stuff to think about there, however....We then need to discuss this then. Among the observable set of facts, we understand that life would be impossible if they were not as they are and in fact, the universe itself might even exist. You are saying that nothing in that statement talks about probabilities nor whether or not it is likely to occur. I take that to mean that you do not agree that it is unlikely?
I need to show my reasoning for claiming it is unlikely. I will provide some links that will support my position. The last one is very informative.
“At present, Earth is the only example we have of a planet with life,” he said. “If we learned the planet would be habitable for a set period and that we had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one, we’d suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life was quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved late in the habitable period, and this suggests that our evolution is rather unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it being very rare indeed.”
http://www.universetoday.com/13741/the-odds-of-intelligent-life-in-the-universe/
You may as well get a lot friendlier with life on Earth—every microbe and mammal, every bird and bug, and especially every human being. Because when it comes to biology, our planet may be the whole show.
Forget the overwhelming math—those trillions upon trillions of planets that are likely out there, at least some of which should be inhabited. Snuff out the one match head that is life on Earth, and the whole universe goes biologically black. We can search for biology all we want, send up all the here-we-are signal flares we can invent, but the fact is, no one will answer—ever—because no one is there.
Davies, though, goes well beyond the flaws of the equation, arguing that there is a perfectly credible case to be made for the presence of life on Earth as a result of a succession of flukes, each more improbable than the one before it, which, together, could occur only a single time in a trillion trillion tries. A chimp randomly pounding a typewriter might indeed come up withHamlet. Once. It wouldn’t matter if there were 40 billion other chimps hammering away, just as, as Davies has written, it doesn’t matter if there are 40 billion planets in the Milky Way capable of sustaining life. Only a single one will.
http://time.com/3747812/life-in-space-alone/
As for intelligent life, give it time, he said. Though it may be hard to think of it this way, at roughly 14 billion years old, the universe is quite young, he said. The heavy elements that make up planets like Earth were not available in the early universe; instead, they are formed by the stars. Enough of these materials were available to begin forming rocky planets like Earth just 7 billion or 8 billion years ago. When one considers that it took nearly 4 billion years for intelligent life to evolve on Earth, it would perhaps not be surprising if intelligence is still rare.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2009-05-life-universe-intelligence.html#jCp
In planetary astronomy and astrobiology, the Rare Earth Hypothesis argues that the origin of life and the evolution of biological complexity such as sexually reproducing, multicellular organisms on Earth (and, subsequently, human intelligence) required an improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances. The hypothesis argues that complex extraterrestrial life is a very improbable phenomenon and likely to be extremely rare. The term "Rare Earth" originates from Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe (2000), a book by Peter Ward, a geologist and paleontologist, and Donald E. Brownlee, an astronomer and astrobiologist, both faculty members at the University of Washington.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis
All of the information you provided supports a different premise. The rare earth hypothesis suppers the premise that: in our life permitting universe, the frequency with which intelligent life arises is extremely low.1. A intelligent life supporting universe is intrinsically unlikely.
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?