Ranchhoddas:
Evolution is not a "chance occurrence of impossible events". It is a stepwise process involving gradual incremental changes over an an extended period of time.
Think about the IBM analogy again. From the large and slow mainframe computers all the way to the pocket-sized devices we have today. Computers have changed drastically over time to get to the fastest and most efficient possible systems. It's not chance. It's not random. It's evolution.
I know you'll get it.
Felixmoron won't.

Felix doesn't get it because he thinks evolution disproves intelligent design.

DoctorAlien:
[s][/s]

How does the intelligent design of the IBM Computer demonstrate evolution which claims to be propelled by blind, unintelligent forces of nature in no particular direction?

Just allow the ignoramus to keep fooling himself.
He deliberately wants to behave he doesn't know that evolution says it is blind.

DoctorAlien:
[s][/s]

How does the intelligent design of the IBM Computer demonstrate evolution which[b]claims to be propelled by blind, unintelligent forces of nature in no particular direction?[/b]

You should not spin falsehood to advance your position. Nobody claims the bold.
Natural selection is neither random nor unintelligent. It also moves in a direction. The direction of the fittest and most favourable traits for survival.

Ranchhoddas:
Evolution is not a "chance occurrence of impossible events". It is a stepwise process involving gradual incremental changes over an an extended period of time.
Think about the IBM analogy again. From the large and slow mainframe computers all the way to the pocket-sized devices we have today. Computers have changed drastically over time to get to the fastest and most efficient possible systems. It's not chance. It's not random. It's evolution.
I know you'll get it.
Felix won't.

I see that the problem here is definitions. Well, my article addresses biological evolution, not just evolution in the mere sense of the word.

DoctorAlien:


I see that the problem here is definitions. Well, my article addresses biological evolution, not just evolution in the mere sense of the word.

In his mind, evolution of Mercedes benz and IBM means evolution by natural selection that Darwin postulated.
In his mind they are the same thing.

And he calls himself intelligent.

DoctorAlien:


I see that the problem here is definitions. Well, my article addresses biological evolution, not just evolution in the mere sense of the word.

They are the same thing really. You'd see it if you took the blinders off. Nature isn't unintelligent.

Ranchhoddas:
You should not spin falsehood to advance your position. Nobody claims the bold.
Natural selection is neither random nor unintelligent. It also moves in a direction. The direction of the fittest and most favourable traits for survival.

Here is a claim by evolutionists in the OP:

"Evolutionists counter that the whole probability argument is irrelevant since evolution is utterly purposeless, and thus never tries to make anything in particular! They insist, moreover, that “natural selection” makes the impossible, possible."

Why don't you read the OP?

felixomor:


In his mind, evolution of Mercedes benz and IBM means evolution by natural selection that Darwin postulated.
In his mind they are the same thing.

And he calls himself intelligent.

Please how is it different?

Ranchhoddas:
They are the same thing really. You'd see it if you took the blinders off. Nature isn't unintelligent.

Oh Lawd!
Chaiiii

Ranchhoddas:
Please how is it different?

Bros abeg shift....
Stop forcing yourself into conversations like this. U no dey hear.

And the worst part is u will be forming intelligence. Smh

Ranchhoddas:
They are the same thing really. You'd see it if you took the blinders off. Nature isn't unintelligent.

The blind forces of nature are unintelligent. Things naturally tend to get scattered rather than coordinated.

Evolution is a magician in process. God is Miracle in progress.

DoctorAlien:


Here is a claim by evolutionists in the OP:

"Evolutionists counter that the whole probability argument is irrelevant since evolution is utterly purposeless, and thus never tries to make anything in particular! They insist, moreover, that “natural selection” makes the impossible, possible."

Why don't you read the OP?

Your OP is a cut and paste from answersingenesis. It reminds me of those Awake magazines I read when I was younger.
Natural selection does not make the ''impossible possible" because we can't possibly determine what is impossible.
You should create your threads from less skewed sources.

felixomor:


Sorry, you are not qualified to give anything.
Your reasoning is below the barest minimum required here.

You're probably right.

Coming to the Religion section to argue evolution with Religious nuts is folly. I admit.

We are not on the same plane.
Your reference to the IBM computer, still without realizing the irony, says it all about the shallowness of the thinking.

felixomor:

Bros abeg shift....
Stop forcing yourself into conversations like this. U no dey hear.

And the worst part is u will be forming intelligence. Smh

At least tell me how it is different before telling me to "shift".

Ranchhoddas:
Your OP is a cut and paste from answersingenesis. It reminds me of those Awake magazines I read when I was younger.
Natural selection does not make the ''impossible possible" because we can't possibly determine what is impossible.
You should create your threads from less skewed sources.

I don't really believe in evolution theory. it's rubbish

felixomor:
Oh Lawd! Chaiiii

Tell me the difference please.

Ranchhoddas:
Your OP is a cut and paste from answersingenesis. It reminds me of those Awake magazines I read when I was younger.
Natural selection does not make the ''impossible possible" because we can't possibly determine what is impossible.
You should create your threads from less skewed sources.

Argumentum ad hominem again. Refute with evidence any of the points made in the article or hold your peace. Don't attack the person.

We can determine what is impossible, friend. It is impossible for a triangle to have anything more or less than three sides. It is also impossible for evolution to produce an eye.

Ericsunday619:
I don't really believe in evolution theory. it's rubbish

It is not something to be believed. It is to be studied and understood. Just like you don't believe photosynthesis.

plaetton:

You're probably right.

Coming to the Religion section to argue evolution with Religious nuts is folly. I admit.

We are not on the same plane.
Your reference to the IBM computer, still without realizing the irony, says it all about the shallowness of the thinking.

You have admitted your folly but u are still blind to it.

Let me tell you the folly.
Evolution of IBM, Mercedes or Computers is not the same as evolution by natural selection postulated by Darwin.

For you to just appose them for the purpose of similarity is big folly.
Go and study evolution.

DoctorAlien:
[s][/s]

How does the intelligent design of the IBM Computer demonstrate evolution which claims to be propelled by blind, unintelligent forces of nature in no particular direction?

Just keep thinking deeper my good friend, beyond the surface.
The answers stare you in face.

DoctorAlien:


Argumentum ad hominem again. Refute with evidence any of the points made in the article or hold your peace. Don't attack the person.

We can determine what is impossible, friend. It is impossible for a triangle to have anything more or less than three sides. It is also impossible for evolution to produce an eye.

Of course, Argumentum ad hominem is the only hope of the atheist.

felixomor:

Of course, Argumentum ad hominem is the only hope of the atheist.

Pathetic.

Ranchhoddas:
It is not something to be believed. It is to be studied and understood. Just like you don't believe photosynthesis.

cool sir

DoctorAlien:


Argumentum ad hominem again. Refute with evidence any of the points made in the article or hold your peace. Don't attack the person.

We can determine what is impossible, friend. It is impossible for a triangle to have anything more or less than three sides. It is also impossible for evolution to produce an eye.

I don't see any "points" in the article. All I see is a biased writer feigning incredulity.

felixomor:


You have admitted your folly but u are still blind to it.

Let me tell you the folly.
Evolution of IBM, Mercedes or Computers is not the same as evolution by natural selection postulated by Darwin.

Lawd have mercy !!
Are you really that ignorant ?

The reason I ask is that it takes an incredible level of IGNORANCE to write stuff like that without a tiny part of your brain pinching you.

And then I am expected to discuss or argue the theory of evolution with you ?

No thanks.
I will pass.

felixomor:


You have admitted your folly but u are still blind to it.

Let me tell you the folly.
Evolution of IBM, Mercedes or Computers is not the same as evolution by natural selection postulated by Darwin.

For you to just appose them for the purpose of similarity is big folly.
Go and study evolution.

We have heard. They are not the same. Please tell us the difference.

plaetton:

[s]Lawd have mercy !!
Are you really that ignorant ?

The reason I ask is that it takes an incredible level of IGNORANCE to write stuff like that without a tiny part of your brain pinching you.

And then I am expected to discuss or argue the theory of evolution with you ?

No thanks.
I will pass[/s].

Just run
You don't know anything.

Ranchhoddas:
I don't see any "points" in the article. All I see is a biased writer feigning incredulity.

You mean you can't refute any point made in the article? Don't worry, no one can.

Ranchhoddas:
We have heard. They are not the same. Please tell us the difference.

You have not heard.
If you heard you would have known by now.
The Internet is on your palms.

DoctorAlien:


You mean you can't refute any point made in the article? Don't worry, no one can.

You are right.

felixomor:

You have not heard.
If you heard you would have known by now.
The Internet is on your palms.

I did not see it. Please tell me the difference I beg you.