A matter of Magic
All-seeing-I
bones in caves?
Because it suggests that an intelligent life designed and then created
the tools.
BUT
The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next
to some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes,
and with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance. Everything on
Earth is nothing more then random convergence of events that led to
what we see today.
It is as if they believe the earth is a magical planet with the
ability to create life and then foster that life from nothing into
what we see today. But. Stone tools prove intelligent design.
Using the same logic, the stone tools must have created themselves on
a magical planet. But that does not make sense. Does it? And neither
does everything on earth happening by random events, natural selection
and beneficial mutations over time.
Are we smelling the Ugandan-Mocha-Blend-Coffee yet?
IAAH
> Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
> bones in caves?
>
> Because it suggests that an intelligent life designed and then created
> the tools.
>
> BUT
>
> The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next
> to some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes,
> and with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance. Everything on
> Earth is nothing more then random convergence of events that led to
> what we see today.
That science you cite says no such thing at all.
Are you even capable of arguing against the reality, or are strawmen the
most formidable opponents you can handle?
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian godmay exist; so may the
gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these
hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them."
- Bertrand Russell
Boikat
> Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
> bones in caves?
>
> Because it suggests that an intelligent life designed and then created
> the tools.
That's because stone tools do not make themselves.
>
> BUT
>
> The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next
> to some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes,
> and with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance. Everything on
> Earth is nothing more then random convergence of events that led to
> what we see today.
Pretty much so. Aftr all, we have no examples of anyne building
planets.
>
> It is as if they believe the earth is a magical planet with the
> ability to create life and then foster that life from nothing into
> what we see today. But. Stone tools prove intelligent design.
No magic involved, just physics and chemistry.
>
> Using the same logic, the stone tools must have created themselves on
> a magical planet.
Sorry. You'll hae to explain your use of the word "logic", since your
argument from ignorance and incredulity means nothing.
> But that does not make sense. Does it?
If you had an inkling of a vague notion of the concepts involved, it
would.
> And neither
> does everything on earth happening by random events, natural selection
> and beneficial mutations over time.
But you're an ignorant hick. So what? Just because your lack of an
education has stunted your perceptive abilities to the point that the
only thing you accept is fairy tales, since you don't have to think,
doesn't mean the rest of humanity must wallow in the same mud-pit of
ignorance that you have chosen for yourself.
>
> Are we smelling the Ugandan-Mocha-Blend-Coffee yet?
Well, apparently you're sniffing something, but I doubt it's coffee.
But thanks for todays non-sequitur argument. A day without you making
a fool of yourself seems empty, for some reason.
Boikat
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
>bones in caves?
>
Science is not a person.
Why the anthropomorphic projection?
It makes you look like an idiot.
>Because it suggests that an intelligent life designed and then created
>the tools.
>
It is pretty much given that tools are made by intelligent beings.
Unless you're really slow, like a creationist, and it takes you a
while to connect the dots.
>
>The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next
>to some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes,
>and with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance. Everything on
>Earth is nothing more then random convergence of events that led to
>what we see today.
>
So?
>It is as if they believe the earth is a magical planet with the
>ability to create life and then foster that life from nothing into
>what we see today.
No. Nothing magical about it. If you had any sort of education other
than what you were able to glean from von Daniken lunacies and
Saturday morning cartoons, you'd realize this.
> Stone tools prove intelligent design.
>
No, they do not. Non sequitur.
>Using the same logic, the stone tools must have created themselves on
>a magical planet.
You were wrong then, and you're still wrong.
>But that does not make sense. Does it?
Very little of what you say makes sense.
> And neither
>does everything on earth happening by random events, natural selection
>and beneficial mutations over time.
>
Why not?
>
>Are we smelling the Ugandan-Mocha-Blend-Coffee yet?
Idiot.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
>bones in caves?
>
>Because it suggests that an intelligent life designed and then created
>the tools.
and how did it make those tools? magic? prayer?
or hard work using the laws of physics.
i welcome the creationist who can show me how to make a stone knife
with prayer.
>
>BUT
>
>The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next
>to some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes,
>and with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance. Everything on
>Earth is nothing more then random convergence of events that led to
>what we see today.
meaningless. anyone know what a 'random convergence' is? izzat like a
velikovsky/astrology alignment of the planets? the age of aquarias?
creationists seem to spew forth meaningless language in volumes
>
>It is as if they believe the earth is a magical planet with the
>ability to create life and then foster that life from nothing into
>what we see today. But. Stone tools prove intelligent design.
?? this is like saying that since all dogs have 4 feet, all 4 footed
animals are dogs. stone tools are intelilgently designed
but not a single one of them was ever PRODUCED by magic or some
supernatural process. not one. ever.
>
>Using the same logic, the stone tools must have created themselves on
>a magical planet. But that does not make sense. Does it? And neither
>does everything on earth happening by random events, natural selection
>and beneficial mutations over time.
>
>
>Are we smelling the Ugandan-Mocha-Blend-Coffee yet?
fine. you go show me a stone knife made with prayer
and i'll become a creationist
Dana Tweedy
> Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
> bones in caves?
Does science get excited about that? It's a fairly common happening.
>
> Because it suggests that an intelligent life designed and then created
> the tools.
Well, it suggests that a known intelligent being designed and created the
tools. Anthropologists know what kind of tools humans can make, and it by
examining the manufacture of the tools, a trained scientist can determine
what culture most likely made the tools.
>
> BUT
Ok, here comes the stupid......
>
> The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next
> to some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes,
> and with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance.
No, they don't. The Earth was produced by specific natural processes,
including gravity, and accretion. All it's "complex processes" are also
expressions of natural laws. This wasn't "chance".
> Everything on
> Earth is nothing more then random convergence of events that led to
> what we see today.
Again, no one claims it was "random convergence". Things happen because
of specific natural laws.
>
> It is as if they believe the earth is a magical planet with the
> ability to create life and then foster that life from nothing into
> what we see today. But. Stone tools prove intelligent design.
Irony. Creationists are the one proposing magic as a mechanism, but accuse
scientists of invoking magic.... Ability to produce life is not magic,
it's chemistry. Life didn't come from "nothing" it came from chemical
process that took place on the Earth when it became cool enough to support
life.
Stone tools prove that humans make tools. It doesn't prove that life
required intelligent design.
>
> Using the same logic,
You aren't using logic at all, just a tired and badly repeated creationist
claim.
> the stone tools must have created themselves on
> a magical planet.
Why? Chemical processes aren't known to produce stone tools. Human
beings are.
> But that does not make sense. Does it?
Invoking magic to explain natural events does not make sense. That's why
creationism is nonsense.
> And neither
> does everything on earth happening by random events, natural selection
> and beneficial mutations over time.
Natural selection is not random. Neither are the laws of physics and
chemistry.
>
>
> Are we smelling the Ugandan-Mocha-Blend-Coffee yet?
Well, something smells, and like usual, it's your argument...
DJT
John Harshman
> Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
> bones in caves?
>
> Because it suggests that an intelligent life designed and then created
> the tools.
>
> BUT
>
> The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next
> to some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes,
> and with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance. Everything on
> Earth is nothing more then random convergence of events that led to
> what we see today.
Sorry, no. Natural selection, you should recall -- because you have been
told often enough -- isn't chance.
> It is as if they believe the earth is a magical planet with the
> ability to create life and then foster that life from nothing into
> what we see today. But. Stone tools prove intelligent design.
>
> Using the same logic, the stone tools must have created themselves on
> a magical planet. But that does not make sense. Does it? And neither
> does everything on earth happening by random events, natural selection
> and beneficial mutations over time.
Using the same logic, stone tools must reproduce with slight errors,
some of which are advantageous to the tools. Hey, maybe that logic isn't
really logic.
> Are we smelling the Ugandan-Mocha-Blend-Coffee yet?
So your argument is that because some things are designed, therefore all
things are designed. Does that really sound logical to you?
All-Seeing-I
It is relative.
Do you always think the cabbage plant is designed but the cabbage soup
is not?
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
> bones in caves?
Science is a methodology of learning, shit-for-brains: it cannot
"get so excited."
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Caranx latus
Good lord! It looks like you've been mainlining it!
Free Lunch
No, we're just watching a total idiot prove that he failed logic and
analogies.
VoiceOfReason
Troll
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Nov 23, 5:52�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
>> bones in caves?
>>
>> Because it suggests that an intelligent life designed and then created
>> the tools.
>
>That's because stone tools do not make themselves.
>
>>
>> BUT
>>
>> The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next
>> to some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes,
>> and with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance. Everything on
>> Earth is nothing more then random convergence of events that led to
>> what we see today.
>
>Pretty much so. Aftr all, we have no examples of anyne building
>planets.
>
Slartibartfast, assuming that Douglas Adams was reliable.
John Wilkins
<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
He only did the fjords. But he worked for the consortium that built
earth 1, and later earth 2. In the HHGTTG he's basically on PAO duty.
Mark Evans
Actually the soup is designed but the cabbage, aside from being the
product of generations of selective breeding by humans, is not. Or do
you cook as randomly as you write?
Mark Evans.
David Hare-Scott
>>
> It is relative.
>
> Do you always think the cabbage plant is designed but the cabbage soup
> is not?
I belive that a sufficiently intelligent cabbage could design soup and thus
could make soup of itself. Cabbage worshippers would of course say that
since The Cabbage is omnipotent and all good that it could make soup of
itself but wouldn't. Thus Cabbage Soup cannot exist but cabbage soup might.
This of course fails to deal with cases of the design of non-cabbage soup or
the non-design of cabbage non-soup. The fact that the existence of such
intellectual cabbages has not yet been proven should not shake our faith one
bit. The alternative is that we are properly speaking of a cabbage god
which is only discernible to cognisant cabbages and not to humans. So did
the cabbage designer design itself or should we adopt weak cabbageism where
the Cabbage is outside space and time and thus cannot do anything at all?
David
VoiceOfReason
Lettuce pray...
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hahaha!
More like an intravenous injection of truth.
A stone tool is evidence of intelligent design but, an entire planet
with complex processes and various forms of life is not evidence if
intelligent design because it happened by magical random processes
that came together all. by. them. selves..
-----------You do the math----------
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
OK Einstien.
Explain why a simple stone tool is evidence of intelligent design but
an entire planet with complex processes and various life is not.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Because archaeologists don't just pick up a random fragment of flint
and claim that it is a tool. They study flints which have been
produced by knapping, compare them to flints known to be the product
of natural processes, and find characteristics of the struck flints
which give evidence of how they were made. This allows them to test
hypotheses of manufacture, and identify flint tools.
ID proponents claim as evidence for "design" various ill-defined
classes of "complexity". However, and unlike the archaeologists, ID
proponents have carried out no systematic study of objects and classes
of objects which are known to be "designed", and compared them to
objects and classes of objects which are known *not* to "designed",
and identified characters of "designed" objects which gives evidence
that they are "designed". Their case is not helped by the fact that
they do not define clearly what they mean by "design". Of course, they
blow their case apart by their insistence that the "designer" possibly
used supernatural means to implement his "designs", which shows that
contrary to the assertions of some of their proponents, their "theory"
has no place in science.
RF
Boikat
Since you have the mind of a four-year-old, it's pointless to even
attempt to do so. Simply put, however, stone tools can be made today
that look just like "simple stone tools" made by ancient humans.
On the other hand, nobody has seen a planet "built" by anyone or
anything, and current theories of planetary formation seem fairly
accurate when compaired to observations of probable nacient star
systems forming at this time in the galaxy. As to the "complex
processes" and "life", that's all a simple matter of physics and
chemistry, even if all the details aree not fully understood with
regaurds to the emergence of life.
Proclaiming it's all imppossible without the aid or as a result of a
"creation" by a deity is an argument from incredulity or ignorance,
probably both. To evoke a "super intelligent race of pan dimensional
beings" is science fiction..
Boikat
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>A stone tool is evidence of intelligent design but, an entire planet
>with complex processes and various forms of life is not evidence if
>intelligent design because it happened by magical random processes
>that came together all. by. them. selves..
>
>-----------You do the math----------
tell you what. when you wizard-boys come up with a real explanation of
how your wizard causes anything to happen you let us know, m'kay?
in the mean time, we'll stick with science. THAT works. science has
explained more of the world in 300 years than your creationist/wizard
view has in 2000
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>Explain why a simple stone tool is evidence of intelligent design but
>an entire planet with complex processes and various life is not.
because we know how life developed on earth. it's called 'evolution'.
and your view? you guys tried to explain weather and earthquakes with
your wizard based view of reality.
seems the wizard has retired 'cuz we know wat causes the weather and
we know what causes earthquakes
your wizard is missing
Inez
> Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
> bones in caves?
>
> Because it suggests that an intelligent life designed and then created
> the tools.
>
> BUT
>
> The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next
> to some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes,
> and with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance. Everything on
> Earth is nothing more then random convergence of events that led to
> what we see today.
Do you have bones of a creator to show us? Just curious.
> It is as if they believe the earth is a magical planet with the
> ability to create life and then foster that life from nothing into
> what we see today. But. Stone tools prove intelligent design.
It's rather silly for you to use magic as a perjorative and then
invoke a magical creation, don't you think? How is magic minus a
creator less sensible than magic plus a creator?
We know that humans have and do create stone tools. The bones you
mention above are additional evidence that tool creators existed in
the past. You have no evidence for god other than wishful thinking.
> Using the same logic, the stone tools must have created themselves on
> a magical planet. But that does not make sense. Does it? And neither
> does everything on earth happening by random events, natural selection
> and beneficial mutations over time.
>
> Are we smelling the Ugandan-Mocha-Blend-Coffee yet?
Apparently what you are smelling is glue.
LT
I would like to nominate these two last posts collectively as a Chez
Watt. :)
LT
Caranx latus
> On Nov 23, 7:30 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>>> Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
>>> bones in caves?
>>> Because it suggests that an intelligent life designed and then created
>>> the tools.
>>> BUT
>>> The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next
>>> to some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes,
>>> and with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance. Everything on
>>> Earth is nothing more then random convergence of events that led to
>>> what we see today.
>>> It is as if they believe the earth is a magical planet with the
>>> ability to create life and then foster that life from nothing into
>>> what we see today. But. Stone tools prove intelligent design.
>>> Using the same logic, the stone tools must have created themselves on
>>> a magical planet. But that does not make sense. Does it? And neither
>>> does everything on earth happening by random events, natural selection
>>> and beneficial mutations over time.
>>> Are we smelling the Ugandan-Mocha-Blend-Coffee yet?
>> Good lord! It looks like you've been mainlining it!
>
> More like an intravenous injection of truth.
I bet you've said that about any number of narcotics.
> A stone tool is evidence of intelligent design but, an entire planet
> with complex processes and various forms of life is not evidence if
> intelligent design because it happened by magical random processes
> that came together all. by. them. selves..
Do you know why stone tools are evidence of intelligent design? There
are a couple of reasons at least. (1) They don't *look* natural. (2)
We've actually observed stone tools being made.
Do you understand why stone tools don't look natural? How is it that we
can look at a stone tool and determine that it likely isn't natural?
It's because of its *simplicity*. Stone tools have a simplicity that
distinguishes them from unaltered rocks or from anything else in nature.
Intelligence tends to produce simplicity, while natural processes tend
to produce complexity.
LT
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:01:14 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
Actually, science has probably explained more in the last month than
Creationism of any form has in all of human history.
LT
Ye Old One
Because there is clearly no design.
> because it happened by magical random processes
>that came together all. by. them. selves..
>
>-----------You do the math----------
I have. Your IQ is 23, and I'm being generous.
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
Ye Old One
>Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
>bones in caves?
>
>Because it suggests that an intelligent life designed and then created
>the tools.
>
>BUT
>
>The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next
>to some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes,
>and with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance. Everything on
>Earth is nothing more then random convergence of events that led to
>what we see today.
Not quite by chance, and not quite random.
>
>It is as if they believe the earth is a magical planet
No, nobody in their right mind would say that.
>with the
>ability to create life and then foster that life from nothing into
>what we see today. But. Stone tools prove intelligent design.
>
>Using the same logic, the stone tools must have created themselves on
>a magical planet. But that does not make sense. Does it? And neither
>does everything on earth happening by random events, natural selection
>and beneficial mutations over time.
>
>
>Are we smelling the Ugandan-Mocha-Blend-Coffee yet?
Any change of magicing a brain for yourself moron?
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
The tool has obviously been worked.
>but
>an entire planet with complex processes and various life is not.
There is no sign of design.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
By very selective breading from its wild ancestor.
> but the cabbage soup
>is not?
Yuk!
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is quite a rationalization. Are you sure it is not you that is
not intravenously injecting that Ugandan blend of coffee?
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rationalization. Pure and simple.
To the evo-freak a stone tool = intellegence but an entire planet does
not.
Caranx latus
What do you disagree with?
> Are you sure it is not you that is
> not intravenously injecting that Ugandan blend of coffee?
Positive. Coffee and I have nothing to do with each other.
raven1
>Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
>bones in caves?
>
>Because it suggests that an intelligent life designed and then created
>the tools.
>
>BUT
>
>The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next
>to some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes,
>and with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance. Everything on
>Earth is nothing more then random convergence of events that led to
>what we see today.
Chemistry is not random. How many times does this have to be explained
to you?
>It is as if they believe the earth is a magical planet
Nor is it magical. Your incomprehension of how something works does
not make it magical.
>with the
>ability to create life and then foster that life from nothing into
>what we see today.
No one claims that life arose from nothing.
> But. Stone tools prove intelligent design.
The relevance of which is...?
>Using the same logic, the stone tools must have created themselves on
>a magical planet. But that does not make sense. Does it?
Neither does your argument. You are as confused as it is possible to
be.
> And neither
>does everything on earth happening by random events, natural selection
>and beneficial mutations over time.
What about it doesn't make sense?
>Are we smelling the Ugandan-Mocha-Blend-Coffee yet?
What I'm smelling from your post ain't coffee.
Davej
> On Nov 23, 7:50 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> > > Using the same logic, the stone tools must have created themselves on
> > > a magical planet. But that does not make sense. Does it? And neither
> > > does everything on earth happening by random events, natural selection
> > > and beneficial mutations over time.
>
>
> Explain why a simple stone tool is evidence of intelligent design but
> an entire planet with complex processes and various life is not.
You know, I don't have a problem with you believing that God planned
everything out, with the way that chemistry and physics create
extremely complex molecules, and if it gives you a big thrill maybe
God actually stepped in and created the first cell or proto-cell with
his own little hands to set everything in motion. I do have a problem
when you want to pretend that ancient writings on stone tablets and
animal skins trump modern scientific observations.
richardal...@googlemail.com
No, and explanation of how an archaeologist identifies stone tools,
and why ID has no place in science.
Perhaps it's the fact that it is a rational explanation that bothers
you.
>
> To the evo-freak a stone tool = intellegence but an entire planet does
> not.
..for the reasons I've given.
Which parts of my explanation do you not understand?
RF
Boikat
Apparently you do not know what "Rationalization" means.
>
> To the evo-freak a stone tool = intellegence but an entire planet does
> not.-
Most people acknowledge the limits of their knowledge, but you, on the
other hand, can't help but display them for all to see.
Boikat
Boikat
The parts between "<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:" and
"RF".
Boikat
Steven L.
> Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
> bones in caves?
Because the paleontologist figures he can present a paper on it.
> The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next
> to some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes,
> and with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance.
It does NOT say that. It says that we *can* account for all that has
happened by natural processes and the laws of science. It doesn't say
that God had no hand in it.
> It is as if they believe the earth is a magical planet with the
> ability to create life and then foster that life from nothing into
> what we see today.
The laws of nature aren't "magical." But they sure are awesome in their
powers.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
You've repeated this so many times, you're starting to sound like a troll.
Maybe you should get yourself a new comedy routine.
Steven L.
You just answered your own question.
Simplicity and elegance are evidence of design.
An incredibly complex system is not.
I was an engineer for 25 years till I fell ill.
I always tried to make my designed systems conceptually simple and
elegant. That facilitated communication of my design ideas to others;
facilitated debugging; and facilitated maintenance.
Rocks, for example, have complex fractal form.
The famous monolith in "2001: A Space Odyssey" was instantly
recognizable by the audience as an artifact, not just an ordinary moon
rock, by its SIMPLE, ELEGANT shape--a rectangular solid.
Boikat
If only it was comedy. AS=I(diot) actually made those claims, and
that is YOO's way of rubbing AS-I(diot's) nose in his own poo.
Boikat
Boikat
> is not?-
Did you plug your 2 byte brain in backwards again?
Boikat
VoiceOfReason
> On Nov 23, 7:50 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 6:52 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
> > > bones in caves?
>
> > > Because it suggests that an intelligent life designed and then created
> > > the tools.
>
> > > BUT
>
> > > The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next
> > > to some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes,
> > > and with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance. Everything on
> > > Earth is nothing more then random convergence of events that led to
> > > what we see today.
>
> > > ability to create life and then foster that life from nothing into
> > > what we see today. But. Stone tools prove intelligent design.
>
> > > Using the same logic, the stone tools must have created themselves on
> > > a magical planet. But that does not make sense. Does it? And neither
> > > does everything on earth happening by random events, natural selection
> > > and beneficial mutations over time.
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> OK Einstien.
>
> Explain why a simple stone tool is evidence of intelligent design but
> an entire planet with complex processes and various life is not.
You said the magic word -- evidence. We clearly see that stone tools
are made by human hands, even up to modern times. People today nap
flint to show how it's done, and experiment with making the same
tools.
There is -0- evidence that an intelligent designer was involved with
building this planet and putting life on it. Quite the contrary --
we've learned of many natural processes that accomplish exactly that.
VoiceOfReason
Where "evo-freak" = person with an education.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Translation: My mind's made up, don't bother me with the facts.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Translation: I have nothing to say to support my bs.
Desertphile
<heek...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:52:01 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
> >bones in caves?
> Science is not a person.
> Why the anthropomorphic projection?
> It makes you look like an idiot.
Being an idiot makes him look like an idiot.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 10:37 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> >
> > > It is relative.
> >
> > > Do you always think the cabbage plant is designed but the cabbage soup
> > > is not?
> > I belive that a sufficiently intelligent cabbage could design soup and thus
> > could make soup of itself. Cabbage worshippers would of course say that
> > since The Cabbage is omnipotent and all good that it could make soup of
> > itself but wouldn't. Thus Cabbage Soup cannot exist but cabbage soup might.
> > This of course fails to deal with cases of the design of non-cabbage soup or
> > the non-design of cabbage non-soup. The fact that the existence of such
> > intellectual cabbages has not yet been proven should not shake our faith one
> > bit. The alternative is that we are properly speaking of a cabbage god
> > which is only discernible to cognisant cabbages and not to humans. So did
> > the cabbage designer design itself or should we adopt weak cabbageism where
> > the Cabbage is outside space and time and thus cannot do anything at all?
In science this is known as Coles Law
> Lettuce pray...
The Cabbage was crucifer for your sins.
Boikat
On Nov 24, 8:04 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
> By very selective breading from its wild ancestor.
>
:D
heekster
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:17:10 -0600, heekster
><heek...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:52:01 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
>> >bones in caves?
>
>> Science is not a person.
>> Why the anthropomorphic projection?
>> It makes you look like an idiot.
>
>Being an idiot makes him look like an idiot.
Yeah, but I was trying to be polite.
;)
hersheyh
wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:48:57 -0800 (PST), VoiceOfReason
>
>
>
> <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 10:37 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
> > > > It is relative.
>
> > > > Do you always think the cabbage plant is designed but the cabbage soup
> > > > is not?
> > > I belive that a sufficiently intelligent cabbage could design soup and thus
> > > could make soup of itself. Cabbage worshippers would of course say that
> > > since The Cabbage is omnipotent and all good that it could make soup of
> > > itself but wouldn't. Thus Cabbage Soup cannot exist but cabbage soup might.
> > > This of course fails to deal with cases of the design of non-cabbage soup or
> > > the non-design of cabbage non-soup. The fact that the existence of such
> > > intellectual cabbages has not yet been proven should not shake our faith one
> > > bit. The alternative is that we are properly speaking of a cabbage god
> > > which is only discernible to cognisant cabbages and not to humans. So did
> > > the cabbage designer design itself or should we adopt weak cabbageism where
> > > the Cabbage is outside space and time and thus cannot do anything at all?
>
> In science this is known as Coles Law
>
> > Lettuce pray...
>
> The Cabbage was crucifer for your sins.
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Cabbage has brassica balls.
heekster
Does that cut the mustard?
Ye Old One
And until he addresses the issue properly it looks like I will have to
go on posting it.
>
>Maybe you should get yourself a new comedy routine.
I don't find anything comical about it.
Ye Old One
Blood spill chucker!
>>
>
>:D
And the same to you with brass knobs on :)
--
Bob.
All-seeing-I
If what you say is true then science would not wet it's pants every
time it finds something that proves man was an intelliegnt creature
long ago that could design and make tools.
David Hare-Scott
This thread is getting gas-tronomical.
David
All-seeing-I
All of it fish
>
> > Are you sure it is not you that is
> > not intravenously injecting that Ugandan blend of coffee?
>
> Positive. Coffee and I have nothing to do with each other.- Hide quoted text -
Good, You will live longer.
Ye Old One
Man has been a tool user for at least the last 3 million years, a tool
maker for about half that time. Man is not the only animal to use
tools, not even the only animal to make tools.
It seems that the development of tool use, and later tool making, is
just a natural progression for animals that evolve the hands to
manipulate them. Even some animals without hands manage to use tools.
So what is your problem?
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
chris thompson
> On Nov 23, 7:30 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
> > > bones in caves?
>
> > > Because it suggests that an intelligent life designed and then created
> > > the tools.
>
> > > BUT
>
> > > The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next
> > > to some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes,
> > > and with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance. Everything on
> > > Earth is nothing more then random convergence of events that led to
> > > what we see today.
>
> > > It is as if they believe the earth is a magical planet with the
> > > ability to create life and then foster that life from nothing into
> > > what we see today. But. Stone tools prove intelligent design.
>
> > > Using the same logic, the stone tools must have created themselves on
> > > a magical planet. But that does not make sense. Does it? And neither
> > > does everything on earth happening by random events, natural selection
> > > and beneficial mutations over time.
>
> > > Are we smelling the Ugandan-Mocha-Blend-Coffee yet?
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> More like an intravenous injection of truth.
>
> with complex processes and various forms of life is not evidence if
> intelligent design because it happened by magical random processes
> that came together all. by. them. selves..
>
If you count magic as something that defies known laws of physics,
then poofing the planet and all its inhabitants into existence over
the course of time, from no raw materials (indeed, creating the whole
universe from scratch) is much worse (i.e., more magical) than
postulating naturalistic means by which those events can occur.
Chris
William Forrest
What on earth has that to do with my explanation of how scientists
identify stone tools, and why ID is not science?
And what is the point of giving what I think are clear explanations if
you don't bother to read them?
Actually, the point is that you are impervious to education -
something you have demonstrated very clearly by this irrelevant
response.
RF
Caranx latus
> On Nov 24, 9:18 am, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
<snip>
>>>>> A stone tool is evidence of intelligent design but, an entire planet
>>>>> with complex processes and various forms of life is not evidence if
>>>>> intelligent design because it happened by magical random processes
>>>>> that came together all. by. them. selves..
>>>> Do you know why stone tools are evidence of intelligent design? There
>>>> are a couple of reasons at least. (1) They don't *look* natural. (2)
>>>> We've actually observed stone tools being made.
>>>> Do you understand why stone tools don't look natural? How is it that we
>>>> can look at a stone tool and determine that it likely isn't natural?
>>>> It's because of its *simplicity*. Stone tools have a simplicity that
>>>> distinguishes them from unaltered rocks or from anything else in nature.
>>>> Intelligence tends to produce simplicity, while natural processes tend
>>>> to produce complexity.
>>> This is quite a rationalization.
>> What do you disagree with?
>
> All of it fish
Judging from the terseness of your response, you're obviously in a
game-playing mood. I'm not.
<snip>
raven1
>If what you say is true then science would not wet it's pants every
>time it finds something that proves man was an intelliegnt creature
>long ago that could design and make tools.
We already knew that. Scientists get excited over such finds because
they get to publish papers about them, not because the discovery is a
novelty.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>If what you say is true then science would not wet it's pants every
>time it finds something that proves man was an intelliegnt creature
>long ago that could design and make tools.
ROFLMAO!!! guess the idiot creationist kinda forgot that it's
scientists who make those discoveries!!
VoiceOfReason
Is it so foreign to you that many people are excited by new
discoveries?
Desertphile
> File under "Nobody is immune from the Chez Watt!"
>> By very selective breading from its wild ancestor.
Some of us prefer egg batter on our wild ancestors.
--
richardal...@googlemail.com
I disagree. Scientists get very excited about new things, or even
things which to most people are utterly insignificant. I once found a
partial pterosaur finger bone, and was showing it to a friend and
fellow palaeontologist.
"Isn't it spectacular!!" I enthused.
"No, it's a small brown mark on a bit of grey rock."
It's all a matter of perspective.
RF
Ye Old One
<deser...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:49:28 -0800 (PST), Boikat
><boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> File under "Nobody is immune from the Chez Watt!"
>
>>> By very selective breading from its wild ancestor.
>
>Some of us prefer egg batter on our wild ancestors.
Crumbs!
--
Bob.
Kermit
It's a bitter truth for some.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Nov 23, 7:30 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
> > > bones in caves?
>
> > > Because it suggests that an intelligent life designed and then created
> > > the tools.
>
> > > BUT
>
> > > The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next
> > > to some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes,
> > > and with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance. Everything on
> > > Earth is nothing more then random convergence of events that led to
> > > what we see today.
>
> > > It is as if they believe the earth is a magical planet with the
> > > ability to create life and then foster that life from nothing into
> > > what we see today. But. Stone tools prove intelligent design.
>
> > > Using the same logic, the stone tools must have created themselves on
> > > a magical planet. But that does not make sense. Does it? And neither
> > > does everything on earth happening by random events, natural selection
> > > and beneficial mutations over time.
>
> > > Are we smelling the Ugandan-Mocha-Blend-Coffee yet?
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> More like an intravenous injection of truth.
It might seem that way to someone who believes his own fantasies are
more reliable than observations of reality.
>
> A stone tool is evidence of intelligent design but, an entire planet
> with complex processes and various forms of life is not evidence if
> intelligent design because it happened by magical random processes
> that came together all. by. them. selves..
Scientists agree with you on that. They do, however, believe that the
Earth, life, and the diversity of life were brought about by natural
processes. Do you think that the natural processes going on today are
all micromanaged miracles of god?
>
> -----------You do the math----------
Kermit
Mark Isaak
> Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
> bones in caves?
Who gets excited?
> Because it suggests that an intelligent life designed and then created
> the tools.
Ah, so you admit that the rest of the rocks in the universe look like
they were *not* made by an intelligence. According to you, in the
beginning, God did NOT create the heavens and the earth. The Bible is
wrong, you say.
> BUT
>
> The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next to
> some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes, and
> with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance. Everything on Earth
> is nothing more then random convergence of events that led to what we
> see today.
Um, no. That's what you say. The theory of evolution gives a plausible
mechanism. All the more plausible because we see it happening.
> It is as if they believe the earth is a magical planet with the ability
> to create life and then foster that life from nothing into what we see
> today.
Nope. You say that.
> Using the same logic, the stone tools must have created themselves on a
> magical planet. But that does not make sense. Does it?
Little if anything you say makes sense.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Moist Lipwig
news:3fe04215-1835-46fd...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 1:48 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 10:37 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
> > > It is relative.
>
> > > Do you always think the cabbage plant is designed but the cabbage soup
> > > is not?
>
> > I belive that a sufficiently intelligent cabbage could design soup and
> > thus
> > could make soup of itself. Cabbage worshippers would of course say that
> > since The Cabbage is omnipotent and all good that it could make soup of
> > itself but wouldn't. Thus Cabbage Soup cannot exist but cabbage soup
> > might.
> > This of course fails to deal with cases of the design of non-cabbage
> > soup or
> > the non-design of cabbage non-soup. The fact that the existence of such
> > intellectual cabbages has not yet been proven should not shake our faith
> > one
> > bit. The alternative is that we are properly speaking of a cabbage god
> > which is only discernible to cognisant cabbages and not to humans. So
> > did
> > the cabbage designer design itself or should we adopt weak cabbageism
> > where
> > the Cabbage is outside space and time and thus cannot do anything at
> > all?
>
I would like to nominate these two last posts collectively as a Chez
Watt. :)
LT
Second banana,
Regards,
Kermit
> All-seeing-I wrote, On 09-11-23 6:52 PM:
>
> > Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
> > bones in caves?
>
> > the tools.
>
>
> > The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next
> > to some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes,
> > and with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance. Everything on
> > Earth is nothing more then random convergence of events that led to
> > what we see today.
>
> Are you even capable of arguing against the reality, or are strawmen the
> most formidable opponents you can handle?
>
Hell, he loses half the arguments against his own strawmen.
> --
> "I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot
> prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian godmay exist; so may the
> gods of
> Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these
> hypotheses is
> more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable
> knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them."
> � � �- Bertrand Russell
Kermit
John Stockwell
> Why does science get so excited when they find stone tools next to
> bones in caves?
>
> Because it suggests that an intelligent life designed and then created
> the tools.
We only know that they are tools because we know how they
were made. There are some stone fragments that are initially
thought to be tools, but through experiment, are found to
be items that could have arisen through processes not involving
tool makers.
>
> BUT
>
> The same science that gets so excited about a simple stone tool next
> to some bones also says the Earth, with all of it's complex processes,
> and with all of it's diversity, just happened by chance. Everything on
> Earth is nothing more then random convergence of events that led to
> what we see today.
The watchmaker analogy fails, because we know the process
by which watches come to be. The earth happened through
processes that we call "natural". The science is about understanding
the processes. Most of what we see is the result of regular behavior
that is described by scientists as "natural law". Science is about
studying those processes.
>
> It is as if they believe the earth is a magical planet with the
> ability to create life and then foster that life from nothing into
> what we see today. But. Stone tools prove intelligent design.
No. The earth is not viewed as magic. Magic is an "if A then B"
proposition, with no theory to tell how B follows from A.
Any attempt to infer "intelligent" origin without understanding
the process by which the origin occurred *is* magic. Creationism
is magic all the way.
>
> Using the same logic, the stone tools must have created themselves on
> a magical planet. But that does not make sense. Does it? And neither
> does everything on earth happening by random events, natural selection
> and beneficial mutations over time.
The logic of science is to conduct experiments to show how the
tools were made. The logic of science is to perform experiments
and make observations to see how the other natural processes
operate.
>
> Are we smelling the Ugandan-Mocha-Blend-Coffee yet?
Apparently, you are not, because once again, you don't recognize
that science is about understanding processes, whereas whatever
it is you are doing only cares about putting the "God" label on
things you don't understand.
-John
-John