Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[Revoltingest]

It's working pretty well for me, thank you. I couldn't imagine how it is like to spend your time denying freedom is real and rejecting subjectivity. It's incredible, a reverse miracle.

You might be confusing my posts with someone else's.
I've not denied freedom or subjectivity.
Moreover, I've not seen anyone else do so.

 

[leibowde84]

Why couldn't it be true? It makes sense, the evidence supports it, organisms are chosen as a whole in a reasoned and informed way.

As before, all this vacuous evolutionist garbage.... Scientists should just be looking to convert the signal from the DNA system to a videosignal for a 3D simulation on a computer. Intelligent design theory says this should be possible. Then we can look inside the DNA world of an organism on a computerscreen.

It seems to be untrue because organisms aren't ordered that well. Look at human beings, for example. Wisdom teeth are there because our more primitive ancestors had much larger lower jaws, so the wisdom teeth fit in. Now that human jaws are much smaller, there is no room and many people are forced to have the teeth removed to avoid infection. Our tail bone is also a useless part of our anatomy that is a remnant of our more primitive ancestors as well, as we used to have tails long ago, but have evolved away from them. These are just two examples from many, but they seem to show that organisms (human beings specifically) are not "ordered" in the way that you claim.

This, along with the FACT that well-over 90% of this planet's species have died out throughout history, seems to point to a great deal of chance being involved. My question is how, specifically, do you reconcile this with your claim that organisms were chosen as is? Before, you merely ignored this point, so I would appreciate it if you could actually address it.

 

[leibowde84]

You are wrong about how to deal with subjectivity. One needs to only distinguish fact from opinion, not crush opinion.

He said "look beyond", not "crush". Please stop putting words in people's mouths.

 

[viole]

So, your position is that it essentially happened randomly, right? Somehow all the elements came together, and now we have pink flamingos?

The probabilities are not good for randomness, in this argument.

I am not sure how much you know about evolution by natural selection, or biology in general, but my point is another.

How do PINK flamingos prove creationism? In other words, aren't regular flamingos not sufficient to prove creationism, from your point of view?

Ciao

- viole

 

[dust1n]

Behold: The color pink: C40-H52-O2.

Made by plants, eaten by shrimp, eaten by birds and deposited in their feathers.

Until then:

"Flamingo feathers obtain their wonderful rosy pink color from pigments in the organisms they eat. The flamingos’ feathers, legs, and face are colored by their diet, which is rich in alpha and beta carotenoid pigments.

Carotenoids in crustaceans such as those in the flamingo diet are frequently linked to protein molecules, and may be blue or green. After being digested, the carotenoid pigments dissolve in fats and are deposited in the growing feathers, becoming orange or pink. The same effect is seen when shrimp change color during cooking. The amount of pigment laid down in the feathers depends on the quantity of pigment in the flamingo’s diet. An absence of carotenoids in its food will result in new feather growth that is very pale; the existing pigment is lost through molting."

http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/7D.html

 

[dust1n]

I am not sure how much you know about evolution by natural selection, or biology in general, but my point is another.

How do PINK flamingos prove creationism? In other words, aren't regular flamingos not sufficient to prove creationism, from your point of view?

Ciao

- viole

God's really into breast cancer awareness.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You might be confusing my posts with someone else's.
I've not denied freedom or subjectivity.
Moreover, I've not seen anyone else do so.

Certainly 4 times I told you, that what the agency of any decision is, is a subjective issue. You denied, without argument.

All subjectivity is about agency of decisions. Reject subjectivity there means to reject all subjectivity. You reject subjectivity.

 

[Revoltingest]

Certainly 4 times I told you, that what the agency of any decision is, is a subjective issue. You denied, without argument.
All subjectivity is about agency of decisions. Reject subjectivity there means to reject all subjectivity. You reject subjectivity.

This makes no sense.
I know that I don't reject subjectivity, no matter how many times you tell me otherwise.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

He said "look beyond", not "crush". Please stop putting words in people's mouths.

He said words ro the effect of that allowing opinion you will only see what you want to see, while he the follower of the scientific method, looks at the facts about the way things really are.

All what we do in science is to copy the way nature is to a model. There is just mindless copying of what happens to exist. All that doesn't exist is glibly ignored. But truth is that there don't exist any dodo birds, and a whole lot of things don't exist at all.It is chosen, creation is choaen.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This makes no sense.
I know that I don't reject subjectivity, no matter how many times you tell me otherwise.

You reject reaching a conclusion about what the agency of a decision is, by choosing the answer, resulting in an opinion.

That is the creationist and common concept of subjectivity. You say the word subjectivity.

 

[Revoltingest]

You reject reaching a conclusion about what the agency of a decision is, by choosing the answer, resulting in an opinion.
That is the creationist and common concept of subjectivity. You say the word subjectivity.

Again, those words in that order just aren't registering any meaning with me.

 

[leibowde84]

He said words ro the effect of that allowing opinion you will only see what you want to see, while he the follower of the scientific method, looks at the facts about the way things really are.

All what we do in science is to copy the way nature is to a model. There is just mindless copying of what happens to exist. All that doesn't exist is glibly ignored. But truth is that there don't exist any dodo birds, and a whole lot of things don't exist at all.It is chosen, creation is choaen.

So, who do you think "chose" for the dodos to go extinct?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It seems to be untrue because organisms aren't ordered that well. Look at human beings, for example. Wisdom teeth are there because our more primitive ancestors had much larger lower jaws, so the wisdom teeth fit in. Now that human jaws are much smaller, there is no room and many people are forced to have the teeth removed to avoid infection. Our tail bone is also a useless part of our anatomy that is a remnant of our more primitive ancestors as well, as we used to have tails long ago, but have evolved away from them. These are just two examples from many, but they seem to show that organisms (human beings specifically) are not "ordered" in the way that you claim.

This, along with the FACT that well-over 90% of this planet's species have died out throughout history, seems to point to a great deal of chance being involved. My question is how, specifically, do you reconcile this with your claim that organisms were chosen as is? Before, you merely ignored this point, so I would appreciate it if you could actually address it.

If there was much of that you would have an argument. Although I would really be looking for much more random growth. You are exaggerating.

The 90 percent of species that supposedly went extinct were all a grand succes on the individual level as far as I can tell. It shows that the focus of choosing is at the individual level, and not much at the species or population level.

 

[leibowde84]

He said words ro the effect of that allowing opinion you will only see what you want to see, while he the follower of the scientific method, looks at the facts about the way things really are.

All what we do in science is to copy the way nature is to a model. There is just mindless copying of what happens to exist. All that doesn't exist is glibly ignored. But truth is that there don't exist any dodo birds, and a whole lot of things don't exist at all.It is chosen, creation is choaen.

No, he was pointing out that subjective opinions, while certainly valuable in certain contexts, often have the ability to distort reality. It is reasonable to value both subjective opinions and verifiable objective evidence. That being said, it is critical that we don't allow our subjective opinions to get in the way of allowing verifiable evidence to guide our understanding of the universe. Obviously, our scientific understanding is constantly changing, but I think his point was that, if we rest our understanding on nothing more than our own subjective opinions, we might possibly ignore the truth when it presents itself to us.

 

[leibowde84]

You reject reaching a conclusion about what the agency of a decision is, by choosing the answer, resulting in an opinion.

That is the creationist and common concept of subjectivity. You say the word subjectivity.

Why do you think he "rejects reaching a conclusion about what the agency of a decision is"? You say that a lot, but you haven't provided any verifiable evidence to support why Revoltingest fits in here. Thus, it seems to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated insult based on nothing more than speculation.

 

[leibowde84]

Again, those words in that order just aren't registering any meaning with me.

I have to assume that they don't make any sense at all, as when he is questioned about them, he resorts to petty insults that also don't make much sense.

 

[leibowde84]

If there was much of that you would have an argument. Although I would really be looking for much more random growth. You are exaggerating.

The 90 percent of species that supposedly went extinct were all a grand succes on the individual level as far as I can tell. It shows that the focus of choosing is at the individual level, and not much at the species or population level.

1. There is "much of that". Pretty much every human being has wisdom teeth and a tail bone. So, how do you reconcile that with your claim?
2. How do you see species that go extinct as "grand successes on the individual level"? Why would any entity make it so that 90% of their creation would die out and become extinct? You seriously don't see how that contradicts your argument? How do you reconcile this with your claim?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, he was pointing out that subjective opinions, while certainly valuable in certain contexts, often have the ability to distort reality. It is reasonable to value both subjective opinions and verifiable objective evidence. That being said, it is critical that we don't allow our subjective opinions to get in the way of allowing verifiable evidence to guide our understanding of the universe. Obviously, our scientific understanding is constantly changing, but I think his point was that, if we rest our understanding on nothing more than our own subjective opinions, we might possibly ignore the truth when it presents itself to us.

That is just a nonsensical tirade against subjectivity which you don't accept, and your notion of what a fact is must likewise be wrong.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

1. There is "much of that". Pretty much every human being has wisdom teeth and a tail bone. So, how do you reconcile that with your claim?
2. How do you see species that go extinct as "grand successes on the individual level"? Why would any entity make it so that 90% of their creation would die out and become extinct? You seriously don't see how that contradicts your argument? How do you reconcile this with your claim?

It is obviously the individual lives that are designed for and 100 percent of them dies.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why do you think he "rejects reaching a conclusion about what the agency of a decision is"? You say that a lot, but you haven't provided any verifiable evidence to support why Revoltingest fits in here. Thus, it seems to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated insult based on nothing more than speculation.

It means you reject subjectivity.