Darwin. We've Got A Problem.

[RWNJ]

If you can read this and not recognize that the system that allows us to keep our balance wasn't designed, then you are willfully ignorant. There is no way that nature could have designed the multiple systems required and the programming of our brain to interpret the data and react appropriately. After reading this, it should be clear to anyone who is honest with themselves that it was designed.

http://www.neuropt.org/docs/vsig-en...how-does-the-balance-system-work.pdf?sfvrsn=2

 

[Czernobog]

If you can read this and not recognize that the system that allows us to keep our balance wasn't designed, then you are willfully ignorant. There is no way that nature could have designed the multiple systems required and the programming of our brain to interpret the data and react appropriately. After reading this, it should be clear to anyone who is honest with themselves that it was designed.

http://www.neuropt.org/docs/vsig-en...how-does-the-balance-system-work.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Wrong. All you are doing is presenting the complexity argument. "Nothing so complex could happen without design". The problem is that by arguing that irreducible complexity requires a creator/designer, then one must also ask if God, as the most complex, and specified being in the universe, requires a designer.

If the answer is, "Yes", then you quickly fly off into infinite regression of who-designed-God's-designer, who-designed-the-designer's-designer... (and so on, ad inifinitum). And if you try to resolve this with "God designed himself", then you allow for self-design, and the need for a designer is moot.

If the answer is "No" then life and the Universe couldn't have been intelligently designed either — because if even almighty God (read: the most "specified and complex" and thus most intelligently designed entity ever) fails to meet the criteria of the design inference, then nothing else will.

Sorry. Your argument is neither new, nor particularly clever.

 

[Tax Man]

Consider if you will that apes are almost as intelligent as republicans. They throw excrement at those who look at them. They give no visible or oral sign of thanks for being given food or help.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What made god? God is a advance life form with unlimited powers. You really think that a few particles couldn't be created physically within the universe out of the void but you somehow think a advanced life form was. This advanced life form would be made of trillions of such particles. Think about it.

 

[Czernobog]

Consider if you will that apes are almost as intelligent as republicans. They throw excrement at those who look at them. They give no visible or oral sign of thanks for being given food or help.

Okay...funny, but not certain that it is terribly helpful to the discussion.

 

[mamooth]

As balance systems are present in most creatures, and have varying levels of complexity, that's a poor choice for an irreducible complexity argument.

 

[Weatherman2020]

If you can read this and not recognize that the system that allows us to keep our balance wasn't designed, then you are willfully ignorant. There is no way that nature could have designed the multiple systems required and the programming of our brain to interpret the data and react appropriately. After reading this, it should be clear to anyone who is honest with themselves that it was designed.

http://www.neuropt.org/docs/vsig-en...how-does-the-balance-system-work.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Wrong. All you are doing is presenting the complexity argument. "Nothing so complex could happen without design". The problem is that by arguing that irreducible complexity requires a creator/designer, then one must also ask if God, as the most complex, and specified being in the universe, requires a designer.

If the answer is, "Yes", then you quickly fly off into infinite regression of who-designed-God's-designer, who-designed-the-designer's-designer... (and so on, ad inifinitum). And if you try to resolve this with "God designed himself", then you allow for self-design, and the need for a designer is moot.

If the answer is "No" then life and the Universe couldn't have been intelligently designed either — because if even almighty God (read: the most "specified and complex" and thus most intelligently designed entity ever) fails to meet the criteria of the design inference, then nothing else will.

Sorry. Your argument is neither new, nor particularly clever.

Explain music. Explain why you stop and stare at a sunset. Explain the desire to help the elderly.

 

[Weatherman2020]

What made god? God is a advance life form with unlimited powers. You really think that a few particles couldn't be created physically within the universe out of the void but you somehow think a advanced life form was. This advanced life form would be made of trillions of such particles. Think about it.

Why do you hate science so much?

 

[Syriusly]

What made god? God is a advance life form with unlimited powers. You really think that a few particles couldn't be created physically within the universe out of the void but you somehow think a advanced life form was. This advanced life form would be made of trillions of such particles. Think about it.

Why do you hate science so much?

Why do you hate puppies so much?

 

[RWNJ]

Ask yourself why we have those tubes in our ears that are essential for balance. By themselves they are useless. Evolution would have discarded them, assuming evolution was true. Instead, we see several systems that are integrated with our brain. Evolution cannot account for this. It was designed. No other explanation exists.

 

[RWNJ]

As balance systems are present in most creatures, and have varying levels of complexity, that's a poor choice for an irreducible complexity argument.

Not true. All of the systems mentioned, our eyes, the tubes in our ears. Our ability to sense limb position and tension of muscles and ligaments...etc. And ALL of it tied into a central processing center in our brain that coordinates the all of them and tells them what do. There can be no doubt about it. It was designed that way.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you can read this and not recognize that the system that allows us to keep our balance wasn't designed, then you are willfully ignorant. There is no way that nature could have designed the multiple systems required and the programming of our brain to interpret the data and react appropriately. After reading this, it should be clear to anyone who is honest with themselves that it was designed.

http://www.neuropt.org/docs/vsig-en...how-does-the-balance-system-work.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Wrong. All you are doing is presenting the complexity argument. "Nothing so complex could happen without design". The problem is that by arguing that irreducible complexity requires a creator/designer, then one must also ask if God, as the most complex, and specified being in the universe, requires a designer.

If the answer is, "Yes", then you quickly fly off into infinite regression of who-designed-God's-designer, who-designed-the-designer's-designer... (and so on, ad inifinitum). And if you try to resolve this with "God designed himself", then you allow for self-design, and the need for a designer is moot.

If the answer is "No" then life and the Universe couldn't have been intelligently designed either — because if even almighty God (read: the most "specified and complex" and thus most intelligently designed entity ever) fails to meet the criteria of the design inference, then nothing else will.

Sorry. Your argument is neither new, nor particularly clever.

Explain music. Explain why you stop and stare at a sunset. Explain the desire to help the elderly.

Easy: we can ponder abstract subjects, due to our grasp of language and our sentience.

 

[Weatherman2020]

If you can read this and not recognize that the system that allows us to keep our balance wasn't designed, then you are willfully ignorant. There is no way that nature could have designed the multiple systems required and the programming of our brain to interpret the data and react appropriately. After reading this, it should be clear to anyone who is honest with themselves that it was designed.

http://www.neuropt.org/docs/vsig-en...how-does-the-balance-system-work.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Wrong. All you are doing is presenting the complexity argument. "Nothing so complex could happen without design". The problem is that by arguing that irreducible complexity requires a creator/designer, then one must also ask if God, as the most complex, and specified being in the universe, requires a designer.

If the answer is, "Yes", then you quickly fly off into infinite regression of who-designed-God's-designer, who-designed-the-designer's-designer... (and so on, ad inifinitum). And if you try to resolve this with "God designed himself", then you allow for self-design, and the need for a designer is moot.

If the answer is "No" then life and the Universe couldn't have been intelligently designed either — because if even almighty God (read: the most "specified and complex" and thus most intelligently designed entity ever) fails to meet the criteria of the design inference, then nothing else will.

Sorry. Your argument is neither new, nor particularly clever.

Explain music. Explain why you stop and stare at a sunset. Explain the desire to help the elderly.

Easy: we can ponder abstract subjects, due to our grasp of language and our sentience.

No evolutionary rationale. None of the three things I listed do.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you can read this and not recognize that the system that allows us to keep our balance wasn't designed, then you are willfully ignorant. There is no way that nature could have designed the multiple systems required and the programming of our brain to interpret the data and react appropriately. After reading this, it should be clear to anyone who is honest with themselves that it was designed.

http://www.neuropt.org/docs/vsig-en...how-does-the-balance-system-work.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Wrong. All you are doing is presenting the complexity argument. "Nothing so complex could happen without design". The problem is that by arguing that irreducible complexity requires a creator/designer, then one must also ask if God, as the most complex, and specified being in the universe, requires a designer.

If the answer is, "Yes", then you quickly fly off into infinite regression of who-designed-God's-designer, who-designed-the-designer's-designer... (and so on, ad inifinitum). And if you try to resolve this with "God designed himself", then you allow for self-design, and the need for a designer is moot.

If the answer is "No" then life and the Universe couldn't have been intelligently designed either — because if even almighty God (read: the most "specified and complex" and thus most intelligently designed entity ever) fails to meet the criteria of the design inference, then nothing else will.

Sorry. Your argument is neither new, nor particularly clever.

Explain music. Explain why you stop and stare at a sunset. Explain the desire to help the elderly.

Easy: we can ponder abstract subjects, due to our grasp of language and our sentience.

No evolutionary rationale. None of the three things I listed do.

You are confusing yourself. Those things are a byproduct of evolution. Yes, there is evolutionary rationale: more sentient beings thrived over those less sentient, due to the benefits of eecognizing both self and other. And language benefitted the social structure and the culture, I.e., the ability to retain and pass knowledge.

You make these authoritative assertions the moment they pop into your head, obviously without a single thought given to the fact that you are literally 100+ years behind the school of thought. Once in a while you really need to pause before vomiting the first thought in your head and ask yourself, "Has someone maybe thought of this before and studied it? Maybe I could save myself from appearing simple and shallow and go educate myself before opening my mouth."

 

[Weatherman2020]

If you can read this and not recognize that the system that allows us to keep our balance wasn't designed, then you are willfully ignorant. There is no way that nature could have designed the multiple systems required and the programming of our brain to interpret the data and react appropriately. After reading this, it should be clear to anyone who is honest with themselves that it was designed.

http://www.neuropt.org/docs/vsig-en...how-does-the-balance-system-work.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Wrong. All you are doing is presenting the complexity argument. "Nothing so complex could happen without design". The problem is that by arguing that irreducible complexity requires a creator/designer, then one must also ask if God, as the most complex, and specified being in the universe, requires a designer.

If the answer is, "Yes", then you quickly fly off into infinite regression of who-designed-God's-designer, who-designed-the-designer's-designer... (and so on, ad inifinitum). And if you try to resolve this with "God designed himself", then you allow for self-design, and the need for a designer is moot.

If the answer is "No" then life and the Universe couldn't have been intelligently designed either — because if even almighty God (read: the most "specified and complex" and thus most intelligently designed entity ever) fails to meet the criteria of the design inference, then nothing else will.

Sorry. Your argument is neither new, nor particularly clever.

Explain music. Explain why you stop and stare at a sunset. Explain the desire to help the elderly.

Easy: we can ponder abstract subjects, due to our grasp of language and our sentience.

No evolutionary rationale. None of the three things I listed do.

You are confusing yourself. Those things are a byproduct of evolution. Yes, there is evolutionary rationale: more sentient beings thrived over those less sentient, due to the benefits of eecognizing both self and other. And language benefitted the social structure and the culture, I.e., the ability to retain and pass knowledge.

You make these authoritative assertions the moment they pop into your head, obviously without a single thought given to the fact that you are literally 100+ years behind the school of thought. Once in a while you really need to pause before vomiting the first thought in your head and ask yourself, "Has someone maybe thought of this before and studied it? Maybe I could save myself from appearing simple and shallow and go educate myself before opening my mouth."

You say every single human being has these anti-evolutionary defects and you say make authoritative assertions the moment they pop into MY head?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wrong. All you are doing is presenting the complexity argument. "Nothing so complex could happen without design". The problem is that by arguing that irreducible complexity requires a creator/designer, then one must also ask if God, as the most complex, and specified being in the universe, requires a designer.

If the answer is, "Yes", then you quickly fly off into infinite regression of who-designed-God's-designer, who-designed-the-designer's-designer... (and so on, ad inifinitum). And if you try to resolve this with "God designed himself", then you allow for self-design, and the need for a designer is moot.

If the answer is "No" then life and the Universe couldn't have been intelligently designed either — because if even almighty God (read: the most "specified and complex" and thus most intelligently designed entity ever) fails to meet the criteria of the design inference, then nothing else will.

Sorry. Your argument is neither new, nor particularly clever.

Explain music. Explain why you stop and stare at a sunset. Explain the desire to help the elderly.

Easy: we can ponder abstract subjects, due to our grasp of language and our sentience.

No evolutionary rationale. None of the three things I listed do.

You are confusing yourself. Those things are a byproduct of evolution. Yes, there is evolutionary rationale: more sentient beings thrived over those less sentient, due to the benefits of eecognizing both self and other. And language benefitted the social structure and the culture, I.e., the ability to retain and pass knowledge.

You make these authoritative assertions the moment they pop into your head, obviously without a single thought given to the fact that you are literally 100+ years behind the school of thought. Once in a while you really need to pause before vomiting the first thought in your head and ask yourself, "Has someone maybe thought of this before and studied it? Maybe I could save myself from appearing simple and shallow and go educate myself before opening my mouth."

You say every single human being has these anti-evolutionary defects and you say make authoritative assertions the moment they pop into MY head?

"Anti-evolutionary"...nonsensical, meaningless term you literally just invented.

Yes, you make absurd assertions the moment the pop into your head. Never do you pause and ask the obvious question, "Since I am an uneducated slob who knows less than nothing about this topic, should I maybe go educate myself before openong my mouth about it?"

 

[Weatherman2020]

Explain music. Explain why you stop and stare at a sunset. Explain the desire to help the elderly.

Easy: we can ponder abstract subjects, due to our grasp of language and our sentience.

No evolutionary rationale. None of the three things I listed do.

You are confusing yourself. Those things are a byproduct of evolution. Yes, there is evolutionary rationale: more sentient beings thrived over those less sentient, due to the benefits of eecognizing both self and other. And language benefitted the social structure and the culture, I.e., the ability to retain and pass knowledge.

You make these authoritative assertions the moment they pop into your head, obviously without a single thought given to the fact that you are literally 100+ years behind the school of thought. Once in a while you really need to pause before vomiting the first thought in your head and ask yourself, "Has someone maybe thought of this before and studied it? Maybe I could save myself from appearing simple and shallow and go educate myself before opening my mouth."

You say every single human being has these anti-evolutionary defects and you say make authoritative assertions the moment they pop into MY head?

"Anti-evolutionary"...nonsensical, meaningless term you literally just invented.

Yes, you make absurd assertions the moment the pop into your head. Never do you pause and ask the obvious question, "Since I am an uneducated slob who knows less than nothing about this topic, should I maybe go educate myself before openong my mouth about it?"

You have yet to tell us why music, beauty of our surroundings and care for animals and elderly humans is a result of an evolutionary process.

Don't be upset. No one can.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Easy: we can ponder abstract subjects, due to our grasp of language and our sentience.

No evolutionary rationale. None of the three things I listed do.

You are confusing yourself. Those things are a byproduct of evolution. Yes, there is evolutionary rationale: more sentient beings thrived over those less sentient, due to the benefits of eecognizing both self and other. And language benefitted the social structure and the culture, I.e., the ability to retain and pass knowledge.

You make these authoritative assertions the moment they pop into your head, obviously without a single thought given to the fact that you are literally 100+ years behind the school of thought. Once in a while you really need to pause before vomiting the first thought in your head and ask yourself, "Has someone maybe thought of this before and studied it? Maybe I could save myself from appearing simple and shallow and go educate myself before opening my mouth."

You say every single human being has these anti-evolutionary defects and you say make authoritative assertions the moment they pop into MY head?

"Anti-evolutionary"...nonsensical, meaningless term you literally just invented.

Yes, you make absurd assertions the moment the pop into your head. Never do you pause and ask the obvious question, "Since I am an uneducated slob who knows less than nothing about this topic, should I maybe go educate myself before openong my mouth about it?"

You have yet to tell us why music, beauty of our surroundings and care for animals and elderly humans is a result of an evolutionary process.

Don't be upset. No one can.

I already did. Pay attention!

And "empathy" is the easiest one of all. We even see it in other social animals. Seriously, you're asking some childish questions that you could look up yourself.

 

[Czernobog]

Ask yourself why we have those tubes in our ears that are essential for balance. By themselves they are useless. Evolution would have discarded them, assuming evolution was true. Instead, we see several systems that are integrated with our brain. Evolution cannot account for this. It was designed. No other explanation exists.

Not only is that a presumption, it is an incorrect presumption. According to the process of evolution, those tubes would have developed specifically because they do serve a function.

 

[Czernobog]

If you can read this and not recognize that the system that allows us to keep our balance wasn't designed, then you are willfully ignorant. There is no way that nature could have designed the multiple systems required and the programming of our brain to interpret the data and react appropriately. After reading this, it should be clear to anyone who is honest with themselves that it was designed.

http://www.neuropt.org/docs/vsig-en...how-does-the-balance-system-work.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Wrong. All you are doing is presenting the complexity argument. "Nothing so complex could happen without design". The problem is that by arguing that irreducible complexity requires a creator/designer, then one must also ask if God, as the most complex, and specified being in the universe, requires a designer.

If the answer is, "Yes", then you quickly fly off into infinite regression of who-designed-God's-designer, who-designed-the-designer's-designer... (and so on, ad inifinitum). And if you try to resolve this with "God designed himself", then you allow for self-design, and the need for a designer is moot.

If the answer is "No" then life and the Universe couldn't have been intelligently designed either — because if even almighty God (read: the most "specified and complex" and thus most intelligently designed entity ever) fails to meet the criteria of the design inference, then nothing else will.

Sorry. Your argument is neither new, nor particularly clever.

Explain music. Explain why you stop and stare at a sunset. Explain the desire to help the elderly.

Non-sequitur. emotional response to stimuli has nothing to do with the question of evolution.