Interbane wrote:Why is millions of years not enough time? Where did you hear this? I can see that the list of reasons not to believe grows as fast as old reasons are dispelled.

The challenge is to explain the sudden appearance of these complex creatures and phyla in the Cambrian. It is acknowledged by all to be sudden even if you don't think so. The tree is largely upside down in Darwinian terms.

Interbane wrote: Is there a hidden eleventh commandment that information cannot spontaneously arise in a naturalistic universe?

It's complex and specified and antithetical to random. We know biological life is mindbogglingly complex and very purposeful and directed in it's working. You deny purpose but nature screams purpose and design at you in these extraordinary biological systems.

Deaf,dumb and blind nature is immeasurably smarter than the smartest humans it seems. This makes no sense. Incredulity yes, but not without good reason.

Interbane wrote:Quote:
What do you mean by similar to a hippo? Do you mean a dog that looks like a hippo or something that is not a dog? I'm sure dog breeders would like to know the secret.




The secret? How about the correct environment and about a hundred thousand years?

And pigs might fly too!

Interbane wrote: With millions of species on Earth fitting snugly in the phylogenic tree, you mention whales all the time.

There are conflicts in the trees constructed by gene comparisons not to mention those orphans who should have related parents.
I'll leave it at that. I won't convince you and you won't convince me. I just don't buy it for the various reasons I've given here already.

Flann wrote:The challenge is to explain the sudden appearance of these complex creatures and phyla in the Cambrian. It is acknowledged by all to be sudden even if you don't think so. The tree is largely upside down in Darwinian terms.

Are you saying millions of years isn't enough time? Saying it's "sudden" in evolutionary terms doesn't undo the fact that it's millions of years. Perspective Flann.

It's complex and specified and antithetical to random.

So? Heat is antithetical to cold. Should heat not exist? I know you'll pursue this, but it's a fabricated barrier.

Incredulity yes, but not without good reason.

Finally! What's this good reason?

Deaf,dumb and blind nature is immeasurably smarter than the smartest humans it seems.

Are you trying to show these things as being unlikely due to definitions of the terms? Dumb nature, smart humans? In that case, you'll have to show that humans aren't natural. Otherwise, they are in the category of natural things. Nature is as smart as it's smartest creation. This is a fabricated barrier to understanding.

And pigs might fly too!

You're incredulous. Why? What's the reason?

There are conflicts in the trees constructed by gene comparisons not to mention those orphans who should have related parents.

Do you have a list? How many conflicts are there? You accept there nearly 10 million species. So are there about a million conflicts? Ten percent of the total might be drastic enough to shake my confidence to something less than certain. It wouldn't be enough to make me think the species didn't evolve, but I would definitely think we'd need a paradigm shift.

Show me these million conflicts in the phylogenic tree. Perhaps the exercise will hammer home some perspective for you.

I'll leave it at that. I won't convince you and you won't convince me.

But Flann, the reason you won't convince me is apparent in every post in this thread. You're wrong on every point. If we were to magically switch positions, I'd be persuaded. I wouldn't hold so stubbornly to a position so indefensible as yours. I don't understand how you can't see reason.

Are you saying millions of years isn't enough time? Saying it's "sudden" in evolutionary terms doesn't undo the fact that it's millions of years. Perspective Flann.

Man are you freaking condescending. I'd imagine you're so used to being condescending you don't even realize when you are being condescending.
Your tone is one of some old school master talking to one of his gullible, young pupils.


Interbane,
your personal perspective isn't enough to know what can or can't happen within deep time. And implying we are here is evidence enough does not substitute for hard evidence to back your philosophical worldview.


Stop with your haughty lectures.
You ARE tied to your philosophy, emotionally, just the same as the next person.
It's a substitute for what you've likely left behind that you once wrongly relied on to hold your psyche together.

Interbane, so you are accusing what? We are talking about evolution? Or did you go on another aspect without telling us and evolving into something else. Evolution has no proof. You go to the grammar school and figure it out. What visible, actual proof that can be scientifically proven - by observing and experimenting upon, do you have for evolution? Not even different craniums or spinal structures that have been taken prove evolution. I bet we have every one of those on the earth today. Some big heads, curved spines (my grandmother had polio and a wickedly curved spine), short people - little people, giants of 9 ft tall. So how does different supposed ancient skeletons that can't be properly dated - carbon dating is proved to be inaccurate over 5,000 years. So in actuality you have no PROOF. You are such a whiner! Chill out and discuss and own up when you have nothing. You are childish by not discussing 3 basic points I laid out to refute evolution and you give ZILCH! If that's the case than just quit.

ant wrote:You ARE tied to your philosophy, emotionally, just the same as the next person.

I would LOVE to be wrong. I would give nearly anything to be wrong. To think that there is a place where we go after death to be with our loved ones. That there is purpose to the universe rather than purposelessness. That an omniscient entity is responsible for creating me. Philosophical naturalism is cold, unloving, and difficult to ponder. It leaves one nihilistic, which doesn't feel good.

But I won't follow my emotion instead of proper method. Why willingly delude myself?

Brother bob wrote:Evolution has no proof. You go to the grammar school and figure it out.

Well spoken!

Interbane wrote:

You ARE tied to your philosophy, emotionally, just the same as the next person.

I would LOVE to be wrong. I would give nearly anything to be wrong. To think that there is a place where we go after death to be with our loved ones. That there is purpose to the universe rather than purposelessness. That an omniscient entity is responsible for creating me. Philosophical naturalism is cold, unloving, and difficult to ponder. It leaves one nihilistic, which doesn't feel good.

But I won't follow my emotion instead of proper method. Why willingly delude myself?

NO. You wouldn't "love to be wrong" Your tone smacks of the exact opposite.
And I'm talking about something else here; not that there may be a parent-like God that collects our loved ones into one place for us to see hereafter.

Nature and whatever the underlining reality is, is beyond our understanding. "Cold and unloving" describes your state of mind as it attempts to wrap itself around its experience.
That's all it is. The evidence is how you treat others that hold to a different worldview.

You are encapsulated in your own subjective experience. You attempt to project that onto Nature as such.
And "proper method" is based on the limits of your evolutionary development within your immediate, limited environment.
Proper method is proper for your immediate needs - to gain a foothold on YOUR life, not the existence of all that has been or ever will be.


Get over it and stop pretending that you are an agnostic of any kind. You are not.
You are an atheist that WANTS there to be nothing else other than an omniscience of homo sapien "proper method"

ant wrote:NO. You wouldn't "love to be wrong" Your tone smacks of the exact opposite.

Don't pretend to know me. I'd love more than anything for there to be magic in the world. For there to be meaning in the world. The truth sucks. But I won't avoid it simply because it sucks.

Interbane wrote:I would LOVE to be wrong. I would give nearly anything to be wrong.

Good news Interbane. You are wrong!

Interbane wrote:

ant wrote:NO. You wouldn't "love to be wrong" Your tone smacks of the exact opposite.

Don't pretend to know me. I'd love more than anything for there to be magic in the world. For there to be meaning in the world. The truth sucks. But I won't avoid it simply because it sucks.

Don't pretend to know Reality or that Nature is blind.

You actually suck. Truth does not.