UyiIredia:


Lemme make it crystal clear to you. Random mutations cannot make any thing. NOTHING. So it cannot be relied on to produce new features that are selected for. It is irrational to attribute design to a series of accidents. Hence, your precious theory is messed up and does not actually tell us how life came to be.

plaetton:


It is actually much more irrational to attribute random patterns of forms and functions in natute as Design , and then attribute the act of design to an imaginary being who is supposedly beyond perception because he(?) Supposedly lives outside the universe.

UyiIredia:


It is more sensible to attribute design to TOOTHFAIRY , since that is in concordance with men designing things

plaetton:

Since God is a generic term, I have assisted you with a simple substitution.
Now, how does that look and sound to you?
Do you concur with the above statement credited to you ? If not, kindly explain why not. Thank you.

UyiIredia:


God IS NOT a toothfairy.

plaetton:


And how are you so sure of this ?

Kindly tell us who God is, if you are sure he is not a Toothfairy.

UyiIredia:


Lemme make it crystal clear to you. Random mutations cannot make any thing. NOTHING. So it cannot be relied on to produce new features that are selected for. It is irrational to attribute design to a series of accidents. Hence, your precious theory is messed up and does not actually tell us how life came to be.

cloudgoddess:

Saying the same wrong thing over and over won't make it true. Really. Mutations can indeed be beneficial and a sufficient proportion of beneficial mutations occur to drive adaptation and speciation. You would benefit immensely from the learning resources I posted.

plaetton:


That looks like a copout.
Lol.

Since you deny that the TOOTHFAIRY designed living things, I ask you again to explain how or why you came to that conclusion.

KingEbukasBlog:


Hey plaetton . How is proving the universe needs no creator going ? Say hello to self-existent energy

plaetton:


If you accept that the Toothfairy created the universe, then you and I have no disagreements.

If you don't accept that, then kindly tell us why you think it is implausible.

KingEbukasBlog:


Is the toothfairy a deity ? Which religion worships the toothfairy

plaetton:


Good question.

Now, what qualifies a thing to a deity ?
Guess.

Belief, faith and sometimes books of fairytales.

The Toothfairy has all .

Every child below the age of 5 believes in the TOOTHFAIRY.
That's roughly about 1billion human beings at any given time.

KingEbukasBlog:


This should be interesting . Just don't run away when stuck

A deity is worshiped , any kid that worships the toothfairy

plaetton:


Yes.
Children regularly supplicate to the Toothfairy for their statutory $3.75.

If that's not WORSHIP, then I don't know what else is.

Aren't you still getting your own statutory $3.75 ?

Better get down and supplicate.

KingEbukasBlog:


Do they pray to the Toothfairy ?

plaetton:


Supplication.
Google it.

KingEbukasBlog:


You don't get the point . I was trying to point out that there are no prayers made perhaps you have forgotten the meaning of "supplication" .

So what's the religion which involves worshiping the toothfairy ?

Plus what do the children believe the toothfairy does ?

plaetton:


Every thing that the adult TOOTHFAIRY does

UyiIredia:


It's your problem if you wanna remain the fool.

cloudgoddess:

Have you tried contacting some of the evolutionary biology researchers at Berkley and Yale (and Harvard and Cambridge etc etc etc...) alerting them that they're fools? I'm sure they'd love to hear your discoveries that have disproven evolution.

cloudgoddess:

Have you tried contacting some of the evolutionary biology researchers at Berkley and Yale (and Harvard and Cambridge etc etc etc...) alerting them that they're fools? I'm sure they'd love to hear your discoveries that have disproven evolution.

UyiIredia:


Not discoveries. Just rational thought with a good dose of common sense. I've already explained before why evolution is crap. Random mutations can't build anything and natural selection is overrated. Creationism or intelligent design is the more rational answer in line with the evidence.

KingEbukasBlog:


This lady blatantly appeals to authority in her arguments and no atheists has seemed to care , event AgentofAllah

AgentOfAllah:


Dear lady cloudgoddess, I have been summoned because, apparently, I am to care that you "appealZ to authority in your arguments". So, allow me to appeal to you to stop all these authoritarian appeals.

In keeping with the theme of appeals, I should also take this opportunity to appeal to Uyiredia and his fellow cheerleader, Ebuka (♫♩♪ When I need motivation...♫♩♪), to be a little less trusting of commonsense. Throughout history, science has challenged and trashed many commonsensical notions without apology, as the following examples will demonstrate:

1) In his ground breaking work on gravitational acceleration being independent of mass, Galileo proved the untrustworthiness of commonsense against the teachings of Aristotle.

2) Max Planck proved it against his own wishes when he solved the UV catastrophe, by quantizing the energy states of oscillators.

3) Einstein and Schrodinger proved it against the demon cat that was both dead and alive (just kidding)...but they proved it against the wishes of the great champs of classical physics, including unfortunately, Einstein himself, who spent his last living years trying to refute the far reaching implications of his work on light. His last years, a cruel irony in that he died in the dark of his own light!

It is evident in these examples, that commonsense, which is just an euphemism for cognitive bias, must never be allowed to sully rational thoughts.

*End of appeal*

I don't know French doesn't mean I speak Spanish. Get some sense.

pr0blem:


And you don't know French doesn't mean French doesn't exist, have you thought about this too?

AgentOfAllah:


You're most certainly correct! As such, the most natural response to anyone who denies the existence of French will be to:

1) Define French
2) Falsifiably demonstrate the existence of French.

Once these two conditions are satisfied, the denier loses all intellectual support for their denial. On the other hand, asserting a claim about French when you are, yourself, ignorant of its existence makes you intellectually dishonest.

plaetton:


Since God is a generic term, I have assisted you with a simple substitution.

Now, how does that look and sound to you?

Do you concur with the above statement credited to you ?
If not, kindly explain why not.
Thank you.