Can anyone explain how the moth got it's owl eyes?

Thurston-howell-III · May 16, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Chance.

Now, you can claim it's "against all odds" until your blue in the face and your fingers fall off from typing it, but you have ZERO WAY OF PROVING that any biological sequence was created. If you do, and it's not just a rehash of your "ALL SEQUENCES ARE CREATED!" spiel, then show us.

But is IS against all odds, you won’t bring yourself to admit it because it conflicts w your atheism and chance evolution.
You don’t get specified sequences of that nature by chance, and you know it, but you’re not fooling me

Warden_of_the_Storm · May 16, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
But is IS against all odds, you won’t bring yourself to admit it because it conflicts w your atheism and chance evolution.
You don’t get specified sequences of that nature by chance, and you know it, but you’re not fooling me

First off: deist, not atheist. Get that right before you go around calling people things they aren't.

And the only one not fooling anyone is you because you've not once shown a single, biological, natural sequence that was created. You saying they are is not the same as showing that they are. Do you understand that distinction, yes or no?

Thurston-howell-III · May 16, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
First off: deist, not atheist. Get that right before you go around calling people things they aren't.

And the only one not fooling anyone is you because you've not once shown a single, biological, natural sequence that was created. You saying they are is not the same as showing that they are. Do you understand that distinction, yes or no?

The against all odds sequences were created given logic.
If you want to pretend that these sequences were created by chance
You can continue to be disingenuous
But in actuality I don’t think you even believe it

Warden_of_the_Storm · May 16, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
The against all odds sequences were created given logic.
If you want to pretend that these sequences were created by chance
You can continue to be disingenuous
But in actuality I don’t think you even believe it

You can't show that the natural sequences were created.

The only one being disingenuous is you.

Thurston-howell-III · May 16, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You can't show that the natural sequences were created.

The only one being disingenuous is you.

No sir, I am citing logic
No codes were ever created except via intel. These sequences are just that.
Disingenuous is coming from your camp alone

Warden_of_the_Storm · May 16, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
No sir, I am citing logic
No codes were ever created except via intel. These sequences are just that.
Disingenuous is coming from your camp alone

But you haven't once shown the source, the creator.
Just SAYING they're created is worthless. You have to SHOW they're created.

AV1611VET · May 16, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
First off: deist, not atheist. Get that right before you go around calling people things they aren't.

Pot meet kettle.

Warden_of_the_Storm · May 16, 2024

AV1611VET said:
Pot meet kettle.

Do a challenge thread on it.

Thurston-howell-III · May 16, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
But you haven't once shown the source, the creator.
Just SAYING they're created is worthless. You have to SHOW they're created.

It goes by logic, you haven’t shown any way those sequences could have formed in the specific useful order or a code formed by chance!!!!
How many times have you been dealt 150 Royal flushes in a row?
This is what you believe is possible
There’s no arguing w you given those beliefs

Warden_of_the_Storm · May 16, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
It goes by logic, you haven’t shown any way those sequences could have formed in the specific useful order or a code formed by chance!!!!
How many times have you been dealt 150 Royal flushes in a row?
This is what you believe is possible
There’s no arguing w you given those beliefs

Screw your attempt at 'logic' and actually pay attention to what people are telling you.

The event has happened. The chance is now 1:1.

To work backwards from that is worthless because you know nothing (and in your case, you literally know nothing) about the preceding events and chances and mutations necessary for any form of evolution to occur.

And that's fine for science. Because we don't need to know the exact perfect string of preceding events to know that evolution happened and happens, that the owl moth got the spots on its back through evolution and natural selection to ward off predators. Because the chance of that happening is now 1:1. It has happened.

While you, sir, and I use that word in the most dismissive way I can, are so focused on trying to pretend that you think you can somehow show that evolution can't happen that you have no idea how to actually argue against it apart from you repeatedly screaming "LOGIC! CARDS! NUCLEOTIDES!"

Thurston-howell-III · May 16, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Screw your attempt at 'logic' and actually pay attention to what people are telling you.

The event has happened. The chance is now 1:1.

To work backwards from that is worthless because you know nothing (and in your case, you literally know nothing) about the preceding events and chances and mutations necessary for any form of evolution to occur.

And that's fine for science. Because we don't need to know the exact perfect string of preceding events to know that evolution happened and happens, that the owl moth got the spots on its back through evolution and natural selection to ward off predators. Because the chance of that happening is now 1:1. It has happened.

While you, sir, and I use that word in the most dismissive way I can, are so focused on trying to pretend that you think you can somehow show that evolution can't happen that you have no idea how to actually argue against it apart from you repeatedly screaming "LOGIC! CARDS! NUCLEOTIDES!"

Oh screw my logic???
You just committed mathematical logic fallacy by pointing out chance AFTER THE FACT. That in itself is a statistical crime!!!
Still waiting on a code that created itself!!
Lol

Warden_of_the_Storm · May 16, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
Oh screw my logic???
You just committed mathematical logic fallacy by pointing out chance AFTER THE FACT. That in itself is a statistical crime!!!
Still waiting on a code that created itself!!
Lol

But that's what you're doing though! You're trying to claim that chance AFTER THE FACT. The event has happened, it is 1:1. You have no way of working out what the chance for the even happening were. It could still have been 1:1. Could have been 1:10, 1:50, 1:50,000, could have been 1:9,999,999,999. Yet you cannot say with an certainty that the chance of it happening was impossible, because of the simple fact that the event has occurred. The chance, for all intents and purposes, was 1:1. The one committing a 'statistical crime' is you and only you.

And I'm waiting on you to show a natural, biological code that was created. Not the trite childish commentary of "ALL SEQUENCES AND CODES ARE CREATED!", I mean an actual natural, biological code that was created and can be shown to be created.

I do not expect much.

driewerf · May 16, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
No sir, I am citing logic
No codes were ever created except via intel. These sequences are just that.
Disingenuous is coming from your camp alone

This is factually wrong. in post #617 I cited three examples where the DNA code changed and improved (relative to the given environment) without any intelligent interference. You should have read the post, checked out the links and asked follow up questions.
And empirical evidence trumps "logic", when that "logic" is based on false assumptions.

Thurston-howell-III · May 16, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
But that's what you're doing though! You're trying to claim that chance AFTER THE FACT. The event has happened, it is 1:1. You have no way of working out what the chance for the even happening were. It could still have been 1:1. Could have been 1:10, 1:50, 1:50,000, could have been 1:9,999,999,999. Yet you cannot say with an certainty that the chance of it happening was impossible, because of the simple fact that the event has occurred. The chance, for all intents and purposes, was 1:1. The one committing a 'statistical crime' is you and only you.

And I'm waiting on you to show a natural, biological code that was created. Not the trite childish commentary of "ALL SEQUENCES AND CODES ARE CREATED!", I mean an actual natural, biological code that was created and can be shown to be created.

I do not expect much.

Still waiting for you to show a specific sequence or code that was not created by intel.
Then I will believe anything you suggest

The IbanezerScrooge · May 16, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
No sir, I am citing logic
No codes were ever created except via intel. These sequences are just that.
Disingenuous is coming from your camp alone

What intelligence are you referring to? The only intelligence we know that creates codes are people. Is it your claim that people created genetic code?

Warden_of_the_Storm · May 16, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
Still waiting for you to show a specific sequence or code that was not created by intel.
Then I will believe anything you suggest

I'm still waiting on you to show me a natural, biological code that was created.

Since the default scientific position is that all codes arose naturally, then my demand is one you must fulfil, not the other way around. The onus is on you to show the opposite to the scientific consensus.

Thurston-howell-III · May 16, 2024

The IbanezerScrooge said:
What intelligence are you referring to? The only intelligence we know that creates codes are people. Is it your claim that people created genetic code?

No, the only intelligence we know that creates codes are from intelligence

driewerf · May 16, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
Oh screw my logic???

Yes, indeed. When your "logic" goes against empirical evidence, either your assumption are flawed, your reasoning is flawed or both are flawed.

Grafted In · May 16, 2024

I cannot.
But colorblindness comes through the mother.

driewerf · May 16, 2024

Thurston-howell-III said:
It follows logic, but if you can’t answer, don’t worry, I understand totally

Ink can adhere to paper in any pattern or order (or lack thereof). That is just chemistry. Remember that I prediicted that the goalposts would start moving. Well, you are indeed moving them. So deplorable.

Can anyone explain how the moth got it's owl eyes?

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

a day at the Zoo

Active Member

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Well-Known Member

Active Member

a day at the Zoo

Newbie

a day at the Zoo

Similar threads