Darwin's Illusion

[Audie]

It is not and you just demonstrated again how you are unable to think rationally.

The ice in the freezer is there because of the cold environment in the freezer.
The freezer is intelligently designed. The ice is not.

"oh snap"

For real dude...................................................................

You shoot yourself in the foot every post.

I'm afraid those of us who've responded
serve ourselves no better.

 

[Kenny]

I'm afraid those of us who've responded
serve ourselves no better.

All I am doing is using the same principles and methods you all use and reversing it. As you said... it never serves the theists any better to address illogical positions that atheists have offered.

Now you know how we view the process you all use.

As the saying goes, "I was born at night but not last night"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

LOL... THAT is your scientific interpretation?

It is not an "interpretation". It is a fact.
The freezer comes out of the factory and is made by human design.
The ice does not. The ice is what happens to water in a cold environment, which in this case happens to be in the freezer.

Derp.

The freezer doesn't create ice. It creates a cold environment.
The engineer doesn't create ice. The engineer creates a freezer.

Derp.

The freezer is there because someone built it.

And the ice is there beceause of the environment in the freezer. Nobody created the ice.

Derp.

The ice is there either because an intelligent design made it

No. Nobody created the ice. Ice is what happens to water when it is cold enough.
It's cold enough in the freezer.

Derp.

or you bought it from someone who made it as you placed it in there... physically.

No.

What I put in the freezer is just a cup of water.
After some time the water became ice.
Nobody created the ice.

The same happens to water when you put it outside when it is cold enough.

Derp.

It didn't just "POP" - I'm there!

No, sh!t Sherlock.

It formed through the process of "freezing". You might have heared from it.
There are no pixies transforming the water into ice.
Neither are their human engineers transforming the water into ice.

Freezing is what happens when it's cold enough.

Derp.

WOW! It's no wonder you have a logic processing issue.

Says the guy who apparantly doesn't understand the process of freezing.

Derp.

I think you need a wider view of what is really happening.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All I am doing is using the same principles and methods you all use and reversing it.

You are not.
What you are doing I can only describe as trolling because I refuse to believe any human capable of using an internet-capable device is this dense.


This is the low you have to go to in order to defend your bs.....

It's so pathetic.

 

[Kenny]

It is not an "interpretation". It is a fact.
The freezer comes out of the factory and is made by human design.
The ice does not. The ice is what happens to water in a cold environment, which in this case happens to be in the freezer.

Derp.

The freezer doesn't create ice. It creates a cold environment.
The engineer doesn't create ice. The engineer creates a freezer.

Derp.



And the ice is there beceause of the environment in the freezer. Nobody created the ice.

Derp.


No. Nobody created the ice. Ice is what happens to water when it is cold enough.
It's cold enough in the freezer.

Derp.




No.

What I put in the freezer is just a cup of water.
After some time the water became ice.
Nobody created the ice.

The same happens to water when you put it outside when it is cold enough.

Derp.




No, sh!t Sherlock.

It formed through the process of "freezing". You might have heared from it.
There are no pixies transforming the water into ice.
Neither are their human engineers transforming the water into ice.

Freezing is what happens when it's cold enough.

Derp.



Says the guy who apparantly doesn't understand the process of freezing.

Derp.




View attachment 81871

ROFL!!

So you just did exactly what science does... you eliminate all the involvement of intelligent design (or God, if you will) and just say "See, ice is just there because of its environment". Forget that someone made the freezer, put water in the ice-maker box, popped it out of the ice-maker et al.

You might try this prayer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ROFL!!

What's funny? The low you have to go to to defend your bs?

So you just did exactly what science does

Be rational?
Consider the facts and draw the logical conclusion?
Argue from an intellectually honest standpoint?
What?

... you eliminate all the involvement of intelligent design (or God, if you will) and just say "See, ice is just there because of its environment".

1. human engineers demonstrably exist
2. at no point did I deny human engineers designed and created the freezer
3. human engineers created the freezer. The tech ONLY creates a cold environment. it does nothing else.
4. no human engineers rearranges the water molecules to turn into ice. That's instead just what happens in a cold environment.

I'm sorry that you are apparantly unable to understand this.
I'm not buying it for a second though.

I'm concluding that you are just trolling.
I would be to dissapointed in human kind to conclude otherwise.

Forget that someone made the freezer, put water in the ice-maker box, popped it out of the ice-maker et al.

I did nothing of the sort.
I never denied someone made the freezer.

It's you who's to dense (or too trollish) to acknowledge that water turning into ice in the freezer is the result of the cold environment in the freezer.
The engineer doesn't create ice. It creates a machine that produces a cold environment.

Let's be serious for a second. Stop with the trolling.
How can you not get this?

Are you REALLY this dense?

You might try this prayer.

Not interested.

Have some intellectual integrity.

The only reason you refuse to acknowledge this stupidly simple point about freezing that even my 7-year old son understands intuitively without requiring me to explain it, is because to acknowledge this point means that you would also have to acknowledge the larger point about any and all experiments under controlled conditions. Including the ones that produce amino acids through spontanous natural chemistry.

And that simply doesn't fit your a priori fundamentalist religious creationist beliefs.

It's painfully obvious

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh... what you are saying is that the "possibility" - "could be" - and "maybe it came from the heavens in the form of a meteor" is your religious "by faith" stance on how it all began because you have no empirical and verifiable evidence and then you sluff it off as "very complex" - like the Spaghetti Monster?

Kenny, that's the language of science and probability. Pick up any scientific paper on any subject in any scientific journal and you're going to see the same language being used, no matter what the subject. It's called being intellectually honest. I doubt you don't believe in gravity, but if you pick up a random scientific paper on the subject, you'll find the same kind of language being used.

In other words, the religious stance you have is sooo complex at the very beginning when there was so little to be complex about, that all of a sudden "POOF" - life began replicating RNA and DNA -

And another believer attempting to drag science down to the level of religion without realizing how little that says about your religious beliefs.

The "poof" comes from religious belief that god(s) created the universe out of thin air. It's you that needs to explain "poofing."

and your very empirical and verifiable evidence is a VERY controlled Intelligent Designed laboratory trying to create the PERFECT conditions for your Spaghetti Monster to create life sending meteorite that your god created.

You are very religious.

This displays a silly misunderstanding of experimentation and scientific study.
And it elucidates to me why you seem to value anecdotes over controlled scientific experimentation. You seem to think that controlling the variables in a study means that intelligent intervention is required to make something happen, when of course, it doesn't indicate that at all.

 

[Kenny]

What's funny? The low you have to go to to defend your bs?



Be rational?
Consider the facts and draw the logical conclusion?
Argue from an intellectually honest standpoint?
What?



1. human engineers demonstrably exist
2. at no point did I deny human engineers designed and created the freezer
3. human engineers created the freezer. The tech ONLY creates a cold environment. it does nothing else.
4. no human engineers rearranges the water molecules to turn into ice. That's instead just what happens in a cold environment.

I'm sorry that you are apparantly unable to understand this.
I'm not buying it for a second though.

I'm concluding that you are just trolling.
I would be to dissapointed in human kind to conclude otherwise.



I did nothing of the sort.
I never denied someone made the freezer.

It's you who's to dense (or too trollish) to acknowledge that water turning into ice in the freezer is the result of the cold environment in the freezer.
The engineer doesn't create ice. It creates a machine that produces a cold environment.

Let's be serious for a second. Stop with the trolling.
How can you not get this?

Are you REALLY this dense?


Not interested.

Have some intellectual integrity.

The only reason you refuse to acknowledge this stupidly simple point about freezing that even my 7-year old son understands intuitively without requiring me to explain it, is because to acknowledge this point means that you would also have to acknowledge the larger point about any and all experiments under controlled conditions. Including the ones that produce amino acids through spontanous natural chemistry.

And that simply doesn't fit your a priori fundamentalist religious creationist beliefs.

It's painfully obvious

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nonsense. Miller Urey experiment proved that testtubes and electricity were needed. Baloney.

LOL No it doesn't. Not at all. Not anymore than demonstrating that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius proves that test tubes and electricity are needed to make it happen. Good grief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This displays a silly misunderstanding of experimentation and scientific study.
And it elucidates to me why you seem to value anecdotes over controlled scientific experimentation. You seem to think that controlling the variables in a study means that intelligent intervention is required to make something happen, when of course, it doesn't indicate that at all.

@Kenny won't even acknowledge that water turning into ice in a freezer is the result of the cold environment in the freezer, and that the only thing the freezer does is create a cold environment.

He insists that ice in a freezer is "intelligently designed" by the engineer that made the freezer.



Try arguing with a mind like that.............


I'm not buying it though.
I'm calling troll.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Jesus was in heaven according to the Bible before he came to the earth. His perfect life was transferred from heaven. He did not become imperfect when he was in Mary's womb. He did not inherit imperfection since God his heavenly Father protected His Son from being affected by imperfect genes.

Cool story, bro.

 

[Audie]

Cool story, bro.

And yet again our fundy posters
maintain the tawdry tradition of just
saying things.

 

[SkepticThinker]

@Kenny won't even acknowledge that water turning into ice in a freezer is the result of the cold environment in the freezer, and that the only thing the freezer does is create a cold environment.

He insists that ice in a freezer is "intelligently designed" by the engineer that made the freezer.

I just finished reading through them ... yikes.

Try arguing with a mind like that.............

One that insists it's being rational, and then goes ahead and demonstrates that's not the case.

I'm not buying it though.
I'm calling troll.

I'm becoming more and more inclined to agree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ROFL!!

So you just did exactly what science does... you eliminate all the involvement of intelligent design (or God, if you will) and just say "See, ice is just there because of its environment". Forget that someone made the freezer, put water in the ice-maker box, popped it out of the ice-maker et al.

You might try this prayer.

There is no evidence of intelligent design. **mod edit**

 

[gnostic]

Nonsense. Miller Urey experiment proved that testtubes and electricity were needed. Baloney.

you do realize that after the experiment they were stored in seal vials, and were re-examined in 2007, 55 years later, and identified additional amino acids, bringin that to a total of 20 different amino acids.

All without additional electricity & without reheating the samples.

The only baloney is you don’t understand chemistry any more than you understand biology.

 

[gnostic]

Nonsense. Miller Urey experiment proved that testtubes and electricity were needed. Baloney.

you do realize that after the experiment they were stored in seal vials, and were re-examined in 2007, 55 years later, and identified additional amino acids, bringing that to a total of 20 different amino acids?

All without additional electricity & without reheating the samples.

The only baloney is you don’t understand chemistry any more than you understand biology.

 

[gnostic]

LOL... I'm not a yec. So much for your scientific expertise.

And yet, you make a lot of the same flawed and false arguments and you use the same dishonest tactics that YE creationists use.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense. Miller Urey experiment proved that testtubes and electricity were needed. Baloney.

No, it showed that silicates (they redid the experiment once with Teflon test tubes which does not exist in nature). and some high energy discharge such as lightning were needed. In case you did not know both test tubes and most rock and early soil are made of silicates. Lightning exists in nature. They only used materials that reflected an early Earth environment.

 

[Kenny]

And yet, you make a lot of the same flawed and false arguments and you use the same dishonest tactics that YE creationists use.

Maybe... which ones? Although i wouldn't call them false or dishonest. My position, like yours, can be honest but honestly wrong.

 

[Audie]

Maybe... which ones? Although i wouldn't call them false or dishonest. My position, like yours, can be honest but honestly wrong.

If your "position" is honest, it's ignorant
and based on something besides infofmation.

It's impossible to be an infomed and honest creationist,
yec or otherwise.

Observing the cut n paste creactionist- site nonsense
you post, and giving you credit for honest intent,
that leaves earnest naif.

That you've no idea what you are talking about is as
evident as it would be if I tried to broadcsst a football game.