in every scripture where god & jesus appear, the holy spirit is always awol/mia.. probably explains the existence of binitarians..
BoogerMan
Who did Isaiah see?
“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.”
“Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.”
Isaiah 6:1, 5
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
Did you miss the point entirely that when a monkey gets "When" then all other monkeys are given paper with "When" on it?
Learn to read.
Did you read all of my posts here?
Specifically, the one that immediately followed the post that you quoted?
Perhaps you are the one that missed points entirely.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
Wow it took you six years to come up with that!
Your point assumes that people spend years thinking about your posts in order to come up with responses. In reality people don’t do that. They might decide to spend their time elsewhere perhaps?
It's just as if you have never read the OP.
Actually it’s more like you did not read the post right before your above comment.
Why don’t you respond to that perhaps since you constantly claim that “evolution is a fact”?
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
But you might say well we just needed to generate a “When”, and not a “When shall”, then ‘natural selection’ takes over. Indeed in the Opening Post “Monkey Typing Scenario” all that is required is to find just “When” only.
But how realistic is this for biology? Is say a new functional protein closer to a “When” or closer to a “When shall”, or even more?
A new functional protein would surely be more analogous to a complete sentence or paragraph than it would be to single word would it not? At least as far as information content.
What if it’s more analogous to the
Even some of the evolutionary literature points out the improbability of random processes to assemble functional proteins to possibly be selected for later.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
“When Shall”
27x27x27x27 (“When”)
x27 (space between words)
x27x27x27x27x27 “shall”)
The odds then go to:
2.0 x 10 to the 14th power!
Even dividing by 10,000 Monkeys
and you still end up with an average of
2.0 x 10 to the 10th power of attempts per each monkey required. Which means that it’s impossible for 10,000 Monkeys to generate even a brief “When shall” by random processes.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
From the OP
The genius of Charles Darwin was in recognising the power of natural selection as an accumulator of small random changes.
Imagine our 10,000 monkeys randomly typing until one of them by pure chance comes up with "When.."
At that point all the other pages are scrapped and every monkey is given a copy of this page. We observe some more until another monkey adds "shall.." and so on through thousands of iterations. How long would it take to achieve "When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?" Completing the full play now becomes inevitable.
Evolution is a little bit like that.
Let’s look at this from another angle.
How much complexity can random processes reasonably find in a finite amount of time? (Random process first have to find something before it can be selected for.)
If you have a keyboard of 26 English letters and a “space” bar you have 27 possibilities at each location.
That means to get the first word “When” it would require on average
27x27x27x27 attempts
Thats 531,441 attempts required. With 10,000 Monkeys typing that’s only 53 attempts per Monkey, so that’s easily within the reach of chance.
However to get just the first two words together “When Shall” the odds become exponentially more difficult.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
Again - total gibberish.
I have not got a clue what you mean by "perfect selection" and neither have you.
I clearly explained what I meant by “perfect selection” I backed it up from an Evolutionary resource too.
If you disagree with my figures, then why don’t you calculate the selection coefficient value of your “Evolutionary Monkey Scenario” (in which all the wrong ones are immediately “scrapped”) from the opening post and share it with us?
there are two sorts of islands.
one sort provides powerful evidence of evolution at a species level.. firstly there are continental islands.
these were once part of larger land masses but they were cut off by rising water levels or the movement of tectonic plates.
So your # 15 thread really involves either:
1.) Knocking down a straw man (ie. that creationists don’t believe in migration or that creationists believe that every single animal population called a species today was directly created by God), or
2.) Definitional equivocation by defining “evolution” in one narrow way (what is called speciation which is compatible with creationism), and then turning around and using it as support for Evolution defined in another much more broad way (ie. a total naturalistic version of history-which is not compatible with creationism).
Both of these tactics are fallacies.
there are two sorts of islands.
one sort provides powerful evidence of evolution at a species level.. firstly there are continental islands.
these were once part of larger land masses but they were cut off by rising water levels or the movement of tectonic plates.
How did Hawaii end up with 60 endemic species of honeycreepers? It is impossible to explain without evolution/speciation.
The problem is that “evolution” is a word that has many definitions. Some are compatible with creationism and some aren’t. On your “Evolution is a Fact” series your are referring to evolution as contrasted with creationism. Even here specifically you claim that the situation of honeycreepers is a “impossible dilemma for creationism”
Since you claim to be well read on creationism you should know that creationists accept what is often called speciation in their models. So (since you demand others answer questions) what is the “impossible dilemma” for creationism?
there are two sorts of islands.
one sort provides powerful evidence of evolution at a species level.. firstly there are continental islands.
these were once part of larger land masses but they were cut off by rising water levels or the movement of tectonic plates.
Cofty claims that “Evolution is a fact” and then proceeds to give threads like this as supposed proofs. He further claims that the situation that he describes on this thread is an “impossible dilemma for creationism” -yet won’t spell out the dilemma when challenged.
Burden of proof is on him to explain his “impossible dilemma for creationism” that he claims.
