I am a Christian theist, and I am inviting atheists to talk with me about the nose in our face.

I read this text in your website:

[quote] Think Atheist is your safe place to come out and learn how to have a dialog with friends, family, and strangers about your belief that the world was not created but is in its current state because of complicated and beautifully unguided processes. [/quote]

You are saying that the nose came about by unguided processes?


Pachomius

Views: 293

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

I sincerely wish that I could follow this conversation but I can't take the onslaught of irrelevant responses.

Ah creationists, gotta luv 'em.  like playing chess with a pigeon.  "but what about the second law of thermodynamics, and the overwhelming evidence for a global flood, and morality, and bananas, ...and...and..."

I read this text in your website:

[quote] Think Atheist is your safe place to come out and learn how to have a dialog with friends, family, and strangers about your belief that the world was not created but is in its current state because of complicated and beautifully unguided processes. [/quote]

You are saying that the nose came about by unguided processes?

 

---------------------

 

Okay, everyone, don't stray away from our nose in our face.

 

You say the nose is the result of unguided processes.

 

And you bring in evolution as the foundation of the unguided processes that results in the nose in our face.

 

Now suppose you give all the writings of all the scientists on evolution to engineers and technicians and builders of all kinds, and tell them to read all that literature, then proceed to follow what they learn from all that literature on evolution in order to bring about a nose among living things without any nose.

 

Will they succeed?

 

You can assure them that it all takes millions of years.

 

What will they think of you?

 

 

Pancake Croissant

You are saying that the nose came about by unguided processes?

 

Nope. Other way around. Nose go first, me always follow nose. Nose is guide. Nosito, ergo sum.

Please don't waste bandwidth with so much materials which are not relevant to the topic; it also slows down the downloading of your messages, over taxing the computer's resources.

 

I will always now write after the last post in this thread, even though it does not in fact address the concern of the author there; just that my post will be the last one of the thread after I posted it.

 

 

Now, forgive me for reproducing my immediately previous post, so that your attention should be to go to the message there.

Reply by Pancake Croissant 1 hour ago

[quote] Think Atheist is your safe place to come out and learn how to have a dialog with friends, family, and strangers about your belief that the world was not created but is in its current state because of complicated and beautifully unguided processes. [/quote]

You are saying that the nose came about by unguided processes?



---------------------


Okay, everyone, don't stray away from our nose in our face.



You say the nose is the result of unguided processes.



And you bring in evolution as the foundation of the unguided processes that results in the nose in our face.



Now suppose you give all the writings of all the scientists on evolution to engineers and technicians and builders of all kinds, and tell them to read all that literature, then proceed to follow what they learn from all that literature on evolution in order to bring about a nose among living things without any nose.



Will they succeed?



You can assure them that it all takes millions of years.



What will they think of you?



Pancake Croissant 



 

Please pay attention to the text above in bold. 


Now, add mathematicians to help the engineers and technicians and builders of all kinds to use all the ideas of evolution and bring about among organisms without a nose a number with a nose.

Because if the appearance of the nose in our face is due to evolution and evolution is a scientific explanation for the rise of new species of life from old species, then the engineers, technicians, builders, and now assisted by mathematicians, should be able to effect the rise of organisms with nose in their face from among organisms without.


All it takes is just random mutation and natural selection and millions of years.

No need for any guided processes.

So the engineers and technicians and builders and mathematicians just have to rig up an environmet of random mutation and natural selection and calculate how many millions of years for the organisms with a nose in their face to appear.

If in fact it will take millions of years for them to wait as for you, then if I am not mistaken they can resort to computer simulation.


[ I don't know how this message will come out, but I hope it will be readable nonetheless, because I am still trying to experiment with the formatting codes of the forum software here.]



Pancake Croissant

Earlier, Adrianna posted this:

 

"OK, OK I'll be serious now:

Vertebrate evolution: the nose


Vertebrate evolution: In the nose

The origin of the internal nostril or 'choana' of land vertebrates, the opening from the nasal sac to the roof of the mouth, is the subject of heated debate. Some claim that it represents a displaced external nostril, others that this is implausible as it would imply a breaking and rejoining of the maxillary–premaxillary dental arcade. New fossil material of Kenichthys, a 395-million-year-old fish from China, finally resolves this dispute. Kenichthys has a unique nasal region intermediate between the choanate and non-choanate conditions, providing direct evidence that the choana is indeed a displaced external nostril. During a brief transitional stage illustrated by Kenichthys, the choana was in the tooth row, between maxilla and premaxilla. On a more speculative note, it's possible that a 'fossil' of this evolutionary event can be seen in tetrapod development to this day in the form of the common birth defect known as cleft lip and palate.

letters to nature
The origin of the internal nostril of tetrapods
MIN ZHU & PER E. AHLBERG
Nature 432, 94–97 (2004); doi:10.1038/nature02843
| First Paragraph | Full Text (HTML / PDF) |


The choana is the posterior nasal opening.

So the answer is: fish!"

I'm sorry - the point of this post was what? Did you have a question or are you recapping what you think people have said?

I think there is a significant element of time wasting here. The poster is not listening nor will he because he does not want an answer he wants to leave thinking he is right. I will answer anyway though.

 

As numerous others have said the nose evolved in small increments over time, each generation being acted upon by the environmental pressures of their time. Fast forward to now and we have noses. They are not more amazing than eyes or brains or feet or even athletes foot fungus. Surely the poster can see that small incremental change is more logical than a bearded dude building something out of magic? There is no evidence of creator nor is their a need for a creator.

To the gentleman who seeks to explain how a computer simulation can be done to produce by evolution, i.e. by random mutation and natural selection, the nose in organisms which did not have a nose previously, namely, so that now they exhibit a nose...

 

You do have to produce a program don't you?

 

 

So at least in computer simulation the nose arrives owing to programmed instructions, which is not what evolution is all about, namely, random mutation and natural selection.

 

 

Now if you consider the computer simulation to be nature undergoing evolution, then that nature is a programmed nature, not any nature without any programming; and programming is an antithesis to unguided processes, which unguided processes are what evolution according to atheist evolutionists is all -- without any programming whatsoever.

 

Pancake Croissant

Reply by Michel Poisson 3 minutes ago

 
"You do have to produce a program don't you?"

No. You just start with simple instructions: Adapt or Die.

----------------


That computer you are using is a programmed machine, yes? no?

You work on the computer according to a program, yes? no?

Or you just pound on the computer with your eyes closed, yes? no?

Tell me what you understand by a computer simulation.

Tell me about this text in the Think Atheist website:

------------------

http://www.thinkatheistseed.com/about/

Think Atheist is your safe place to come out and learn how to have a dialog with friends, family, and strangers about your belief that the world was not created but is in its current state because of complicated and beautifully unguided processes.

-------------------

Does that text above come forth and stay stable all in the midst of unguided processes, yes? no?


Lastly, assuming that you are driving a car, is that car a guided machine or not, and is the traffic system of streets you are traveling in following guided processes, yes? no?

 

Just one more point, granting though not conceding that the world you are living in came about by unguided processes,  is it now operating according to guided processes, and you are dependent on these guided processes as you guide yourself to get to your destination locations of homes, office buildings, shops, and leisure places, which were raised up on guided processes, yes? no?

 

You see, you think you are so smart to use concepts and words or abuse concepts and words to appear so smart to yourselves and your fellow smart atheists that the world today came about by unguided processes, see if you can survive one split second if the world is not existing and operating on guided processes as you read this post.

 


One last last thing for you to think about if you do think:

 

If the world came about to be an assemblage of guided processes from unguided processes, by way of random mutation and natural selection, isn't that double-talk saying that things are random and then saying that they are selected, how can you have selection unless you there is guidance to the selection.

 

You guys are always into double-talk.

 

Pancake Croissant


Lastly, assuming that you are driving a car, is that car a guided machine or not, and is the traffic system of streets you are traveling in following guided processes, yes? no?

 

You guys are always into double-talk.

 

Double Talk? We are talking about the world, biology, and processes that occur and you want to talk about items where we can point not only to a designer but an engineers stamp? You are reasoning your way through this and not providing evidence or comparing apples to apples.

 

You are asking for new features. How about people with 6 fingers on each hand? For this to hold on all that we need is a benefit for this that causes people to make more money as a result of this mutation then it becomes characterized as beauty. Isolate this trait geographically and eventually (yeah, millions of years) and you'll see speciation due to compounding mutations.  But of course, this won't fly I'm sure. 

 

You are really looking for new information. How about a whole extra Chromosome? Down Syndrome does that, but of course you don't see how that could ever be beneficial so you'll discount it. The point is that it not only can happen, but does. Mix in a little time, chance.. but you were looking for an example.

 

Nylonase becoming able to eat petroleum products. A bacteria that developed between 1935 and 1975 due to a frame shift mutation. Certainly it's new and beneficial.

 

On the contrary to the guided question, one could return the question and ask why a designer would have the laryngeal Nerve run from the brain, around the heart, and back to the larynx. The list would go on and on like the Appendix getting clogged and potentially killing you. I'm sure that you've heard these so I'll save it. 

 

If you want to see an unguided process of evolution, Avida. The short is that we can't demonstrate evolution beyond showing DNA, Fossils, Predictions (there may be a few other ways that aren't striking me). So Avida was developed to test out evolution sped up in a digital world with. Set the parameters of the world as it exists, and let the digital world demonstrate if it's even feasible simply based on the data, sans potential personal desires for outcomes. 

 

I can't make you accept evolution. I don't want to either. You can choose to ignore it, but you'll want to thank Jonas Saulk for studying it and applying that knowledge. You'll want to thank Pharmaceutical's for their application of evolutionary theory into understanding how to turn gene's off and on in gene therapies, and what each is meant to do... even the ones shutdown but still present as information. Why would a designer put relic DNA in me when I was simply formed from the dust of the Earth? Shouldn't I have my own unique DNA straight from Adam through to me with no Animal DNA included? 

 

 

RSS

Events

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service