Sand Castles and bowling ball?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-03-2010, 10:50 AM
 
RE: Sand Castles and bowling ball?
This reminded me of a lecture I saw by Richard Dawkins. He explains quite well how this kind of reasoning ir wrong. He puts the example of a junk yard with parts of planes being blown by the wind and assembling a 747.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ghuVDSHY48
Please watch it, it's very interesting. He explains how it's not just about chance, but how natural selection intervenes.
Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2010, 11:50 AM
 
RE: Sand Castles and bowling ball?
(14-03-2010 10:50 AM)Nahuel Wrote:  This reminded me of a lecture I saw by Richard Dawkins. He explains quite well how this kind of reasoning ir wrong. He puts the example of a junk yard with parts of planes being blown by the wind and assembling a 747.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ghuVDSHY48
Please watch it, it's very interesting. He explains how it's not just about chance, but how natural selection intervenes.

A couple of things- my post was asking what what would you THINK if you saw that? Dad nothing to do with reasoning.

I like how in the video he says "You see a beautifully DESIGNED animal" on top of the mountain. He fails in that demo because there is always a target, there is no target in evolution, the goal in evolution is not to have an eye, how would it know that an eye was good? Were there humans with eyes on their fingers walking around and so they went blind because they were grabbing things, and the ones with eyes on their backs didn't go blind as quick but they had to walk backwards, and the ones that had their eye in the front was better but the only had one and it was on the side of their head. And how would bisexual reproduction start, what was wrong with asexual reproduction, I would have a better chance of surviving if I didn't have to find a mate. Anyway enough about that.
(13-03-2010 05:18 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(13-03-2010 04:52 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  My question was what would think? You are telling me then when you walked up to that you would think, it was the product of chance.

Not in all situations, no. But my point is that the things which you are comparing the sand castle to can very well have arisen through entirely natural means.

Quote:Show me how I committed burden of proof so I can learn.

You asked him to disprove the existence of God. This is the burden of proof fallacy; you must prove that he exists.

Quote:I am going to watch my tongue, but to summarize the Kalam argument the way way did shows your inexperience and lack of depth, no matter what side you believe the argument is way more complex than you or I are capable of discussing and therefore I would argue a waste of time.

Then explain how it was incorrect.

Quote:When you can answer Cantorian set theory, transfinite arithmetic, the ontological status of sets, the nature of time as tensed or tenseless, Zeno's Paradoxes, Kant's First Antinomy, not just that but Kant said " that by understanding the sources and limits of human knowledge we can ask fruitful metaphysical questions.

Show how these are relevant before you claim that I need to know them.

Quote:Therefore if the mind can think only in terms of causality", How about an infinite past, not possible, contemporary Big Bang cosmology (including critiques of alternative or non-standard cosmological theories such as the Steady State model, the Oscillating model, the Vacuum Fluctuation model, and Quantum Gravity models), thermodynamics and physical eschatology and that is to just discuss premise 1

When did I ever say that I supported an infinite past idea? I specifically stated that I didn't.

Quote:Do a little looking, a number of your skeptics/atheists don't dispute the truth of the first two premises

Bollocks. I have been all over the internet and nearly every atheist disputes those two premises.

Quote:and even though I am pulling the AGE card, I doubt you have done that in the short time you have been doing this.

Ad hominem, duly ignored.

Quote:You don't have to put your own original thoughts into your posts or replies to me like others are doing

Again, show how my posts are not my own thoughts. What's that? You can't? That's right. I thought so.

You need to dig deeper into the fallacy of proof, I explained it a little in a previous post, you need to do your homework again it's a superficial knowledge of the fallacy. Briefly, to say God doesn't exist, still needs proof on your part.

I was asking the Vet to prove God doesn't exist based on his experience. I said I don't care about fallacies. Don't want to hear the usual arguments from evolutionists, maybe explain what happens to animals with selective breeding? If I breed a chicken to have larger breasts, what characteristics die out? Or do they die out?

I said a number of atheists don't dispute the first two premises, 1 is a number 2 is a number, and you said nearly every atheist disputes those two premises. So I was right, but man it is draining with you.

Are the "arguments" you posted your thoughts or are they the thoughts of others that you put in there.

Objective moral values do exist to Muslims, Mormons, Christians, Jews, Seventh Day Adventists,, Christian Scientists etc. They don't exist to you.
Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2010, 12:15 PM (This post was last modified: 14-03-2010 12:49 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Sand Castles and bowling ball?
(14-03-2010 11:50 AM)martinb59 Wrote:  He fails in that demo because there is always a target

Bare assertion. Where is your evidence that there is a target?

Quote:there is no target in evolution, the goal in evolution is not to have an eye, how would it know that an eye was good?

It doesn't "know" that an eye is good. It's simply that those with eyes survive, and thus pass on the eyes.

Quote:Were there humans with eyes on their fingers walking around and so they went blind because they were grabbing things, and the ones with eyes on their backs didn't go blind as quick but they had to walk backwards, and the ones that had their eye in the front was better but the only had one and it was on the side of their head.

I doubt it. Evolution on this planet seems to favor models which have binocular vision situated on the upper front of the skull. Any other models, if they existed in the first place, died out very quickly.

Quote:And how would bisexual reproduction start

The same way anything starts in evolution: bit by bit. You can use this page on TalkOrigins as a starting point if you want to do some research on it.

Quote:what was wrong with asexual reproduction, I would have a better chance of surviving if I didn't have to find a mate.

Sexual reproduction offers the chance to evolve more rapidly through the mingling of gene trees. With asexual reproduction, mutations happen very slowly, if at all, and therefore the species involved are more susceptible to dying out with the introduction of a new environmental pressure.

Quote:You need to dig deeper into the fallacy of proof, I explained it a little in a previous post, you need to do your homework again it's a superficial knowledge of the fallacy. Briefly, to say God doesn't exist, still needs proof on your part.

Briefly, no, it doesn't. Again, you need to study the burden of proof. Do I need evidence to say that there is not a leprechaun living under my bed?

Quote:I was asking the Vet to prove God doesn't exist based on his experience. I said I don't care about fallacies.

You should.

Quote:Don't want to hear the usual arguments from evolutionists, maybe explain what happens to animals with selective breeding? If I breed a chicken to have larger breasts, what characteristics die out? Or do they die out?

What do you mean? Nothing has to die out. If you breed for larger breasts in chickens, the only trait that would "die out" would be small breasts in said chickens. And even then, it could be carried in a recessive gene.

Quote:I said a number of atheists don't dispute the first two premises, 1 is a number 2 is a number, and you said nearly every atheist disputes those two premises. So I was right, but man it is draining with you.

Fine. If you want to say that there are one or two atheists who do not dispute those premises, I guess I can't fault you, but it is a misleading statement. Take a look:

Quote:Do a little looking, a number of your skeptics/atheists don't dispute the truth of the first two premises

You could have meant "one or two" atheists do not dispute these premises, but that doesn't support your argument in the slightest. The way you phrased it, it sounded as if you had never met an atheist who disputed these premises.

Quote:Are the "arguments" you posted your thoughts or are they the thoughts of others that you put in there.


Mine. Are the arguments you post your thoughts, or are they the thoughts of others? After all, the objections you raise are raised by other people. They can't just be yours. Rolleyes

Quote:Objective moral values do exist to Muslims, Mormons, Christians, Jews, Seventh Day Adventists,, Christian Scientists etc. They don't exist to you.

No, these people believe they exist. That does not mean that they do. Argument ad populum again.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2010, 01:08 PM
RE: Sand Castles and bowling ball?
(14-03-2010 11:50 AM)martinb59 Wrote:  I like how in the video he says "You see a beautifully DESIGNED animal" on top of the mountain. He fails in that demo because there is always a target, there is no target in evolution, the goal in evolution is not to have an eye, how would it know that an eye was good? Were there humans with eyes on their fingers walking around and so they went blind because they were grabbing things, and the ones with eyes on their backs didn't go blind as quick but they had to walk backwards, and the ones that had their eye in the front was better but the only had one and it was on the side of their head. And how would bisexual reproduction start, what was wrong with asexual reproduction, I would have a better chance of surviving if I didn't have to find a mate. Anyway enough about that.

There is the second part of evolution that puts reproduction using two ahead of asexual reproduction. Evolution isn't just what organism can survive the longest, it's which organism can survive the longest to produce more organisms to survive better than others. A lion can live a hundred years and be stronger than all other lions, but if it doesn't reproduce than its genes for survival are lost. Putting it back into your original point of asexual reproduction, when you have two organisms, with different traits, then you get more genetic diversity. So, finding a mate may be more dangerous than sexual reproduction, but the offspring it produces, and keep in find that is why long life matter in evolution, can be better fit for their environment. Asexual reproduction is basically cloning yourself, where reproduction with two organisms have a mix and match effect.

I have no idea as to weather or not you will click, but here is a link that explains it better than I.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may99.html

The first part, about the eyes, was a little odd. The eye didn't evolve like that, but I think that is beside the point. You're right, evolution is not intelligent, and doesn't have a goal. So, correct Martin, evolution didn't have the goal of creating an eye. The analogy about the eye is not about a designed eye, but how it came to be. Dawkin's point is people often use straw men when disputing evolution, that would be the steep cliff, and the real theory of evolution would be the slow and gradual side of the mountain.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2010, 08:36 PM
 
RE: Sand Castles and bowling ball?
Martin why do you keep going to reproduction and genetics when you odviously have no idea what you are talking about?

Asexual reproduction is the simplest and most primitive form found on this plannet. Of course sexual reproduction would survive in more evolved forms of life as it is vastly superior.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Icky. Purity Ball and this on going virgin culture dancefortwo 72 2,080 15-05-2014 03:29 PM
Last Post: dancefortwo
  Is Sand Cats "Muslims" favorite animal Ronga23 0 160 21-11-2013 12:05 PM
Last Post: Ronga23
Forum Jump: