Evolution, God made or an accident

[bahman]

You cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural being that gives shape to nature. You cannot prove it either. Evolution is not a very precise practice. Even physics is not a very precise practice as things can be manipulated in digits that are beyond the precision of physics.

You demonstrate many examples of natural selection, and you can show many examples of such ifiotic design as the render the idea of "intelligence" void.

For example - do you know about the nerve that serves the Larynx?

What you are talking about!?

[Walker]

because you already know you'll never know...that is what I am trying to figure out.

Begin with figuring out why you make huge assumptions like that, about who knows and who doesn't, about who will know and who will not know.

And as was already noted, you can also work on figuring out why you play with words rather than philosopize with meaning.

For the same reason you do. Go figure.

Assuming we’re the same is your own fantasy.

[commonsense]

An intervention of a deity in the evolution of the natural world.

But why assume there is such an entity who intervenes in the natural world, when you already know you cannot know of any such deity?
Do you just like playing with imagined things as though they were real in your story you are telling others about?

The point is there is a huge debate about evolution between theists and atheists. I am saying that both parties are wrong in the sense that evolution is not a precise practice so one cannot use it to make an argument against or in favor of God, creation, and the like.

You have just endorsed the argument of agnostics.

[bahman]

But why assume there is such an entity who intervenes in the natural world, when you already know you cannot know of any such deity?
Do you just like playing with imagined things as though they were real in your story you are telling others about?

The point is there is a huge debate about evolution between theists and atheists. I am saying that both parties are wrong in the sense that evolution is not a precise practice so one cannot use it to make an argument against or in favor of God, creation, and the like.

You have just endorsed the argument of agnostics.

Yes.

[commonsense]

You cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural being that gives shape to nature. You cannot prove it either. Evolution is not a very precise practice. Even physics is not a very precise practice as things can be manipulated in digits that are beyond the precision of physics.

You demonstrate many examples of natural selection, and you can show many examples of such ifiotic design as the render the idea of "intelligence" void.

For example - do you know about the nerve that serves the Larynx?

What about the recurrent laryngeal nerve are you referencing? Or does CM X have something to do with natural selection?

I guess I’m just a little bit dense about why you’re asking.

[Sculptor]

You cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural being that gives shape to nature. You cannot prove it either. Evolution is not a very precise practice. Even physics is not a very precise practice as things can be manipulated in digits that are beyond the precision of physics.

You demonstrate many examples of natural selection, and you can show many examples of such ifiotic design as the render the idea of "intelligence" void.

For example - do you know about the nerve that serves the Larynx?

What you are talking about!?

In fish the larynx nerve is short as it serves the gills. But as amphibians developed and the gills transformed to be vestiges the pathway of that nerve continued through the aortic loop. What was perfectly efficent in a fish became ridiculous in long necked animals.
In a dinosaur that nerve has to travel from the brain down the whole length of the next to wrap under the heart only to have to find its way up to the throat.
This can be seen in Gifaffes whose Larynx nerve is 3.6 metres long.
This is not evidence for intellgent design but natural selection through the promotion of useful traits.
As the advantage of long neck is diverse animals grew the larygial nerve did not get the memo and still goes in this absurd journey.
There are many other numerous examples of design flaws that could only be the result of natural selection.

[Sculptor]

You cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural being that gives shape to nature. You cannot prove it either. Evolution is not a very precise practice. Even physics is not a very precise practice as things can be manipulated in digits that are beyond the precision of physics.

You demonstrate many examples of natural selection, and you can show many examples of such ifiotic design as the render the idea of "intelligence" void.

For example - do you know about the nerve that serves the Larynx?

What about the recurrent laryngeal nerve are you referencing? Or does CM X have something to do with natural selection?

I guess I’m just a little bit dense about why you’re asking.

In fish the larynx nerve is short as it serves the gills. But as amphibians developed and the gills transformed to be vestiges the pathway of that nerve continued through the aortic loop. What was perfectly efficent in a fish became ridiculous in long necked animals.
In a dinosaur that nerve has to travel from the brain down the whole length of the next to wrap under the heart only to have to find its way up to the throat.
This can be seen in Gifaffes whose Larynx nerve is 3.6 metres long.
This is not evidence for intellgent design but natural selection through the promotion of useful traits.
As the advantage of long neck is diverse animals grew the larygial nerve did not get the memo and still goes in this absurd journey.
There are many other numerous examples of design flaws that could only be the result of natural selection.

[commonsense]

You demonstrate many examples of natural selection, and you can show many examples of such ifiotic design as the render the idea of "intelligence" void.

For example - do you know about the nerve that serves the Larynx?

What about the recurrent laryngeal nerve are you referencing? Or does CM X have something to do with natural selection?

I guess I’m just a little bit dense about why you’re asking.

In fish the larynx nerve is short as it serves the gills. But as amphibians developed and the gills transformed to be vestiges the pathway of that nerve continued through the aortic loop. What was perfectly efficent in a fish became ridiculous in long necked animals.
In a dinosaur that nerve has to travel from the brain down the whole length of the next to wrap under the heart only to have to find its way up to the throat.
This can be seen in Gifaffes whose Larynx nerve is 3.6 metres long.
This is not evidence for intellgent design but natural selection through the promotion of useful traits.
As the advantage of long neck is diverse animals grew the larygial nerve did not get the memo and still goes in this absurd journey.
There are many other numerous examples of design flaws that could only be the result of natural selection.

Thanks. I see why you posed what you did to bahm.

[Age]

You cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural being that gives shape to nature. You cannot prove it either.

If by the USE of the word 'supernatural' here 'you' are REFERRING TO some 'thing' that could NOT POSSIBLY exist, then, OF COURSE, 'you' could NOT prove what 'you' SAID and WROTE here.

However, if, by the USE of the word 'supernatural' here 'you' are just REFERRING TO THE 'thing', which ACTUALLY DOES give shape to 'Nature', Itself, then, OBVIOUSLY, and OF COURSE, the existence of THIS 'thing' CAN BE PROVED.

'It' ALL DEPENDS on what 'you' MEAN, and/or ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

Evolution is not a very precise practice. Even physics is not a very precise practice as things can be manipulated in digits that are beyond the precision of physics.

[bahman]

You demonstrate many examples of natural selection, and you can show many examples of such ifiotic design as the render the idea of "intelligence" void.

For example - do you know about the nerve that serves the Larynx?

What you are talking about!?

In fish the larynx nerve is short as it serves the gills. But as amphibians developed and the gills transformed to be vestiges the pathway of that nerve continued through the aortic loop. What was perfectly efficent in a fish became ridiculous in long necked animals.
In a dinosaur that nerve has to travel from the brain down the whole length of the next to wrap under the heart only to have to find its way up to the throat.
This can be seen in Gifaffes whose Larynx nerve is 3.6 metres long.
This is not evidence for intellgent design but natural selection through the promotion of useful traits.
As the advantage of long neck is diverse animals grew the larygial nerve did not get the memo and still goes in this absurd journey.
There are many other numerous examples of design flaws that could only be the result of natural selection.

One can argue that that is God's intention to design and change the natural features of animals, humans, dinosaurs, etc.

[Sculptor]

What you are talking about!?

In fish the larynx nerve is short as it serves the gills. But as amphibians developed and the gills transformed to be vestiges the pathway of that nerve continued through the aortic loop. What was perfectly efficent in a fish became ridiculous in long necked animals.
In a dinosaur that nerve has to travel from the brain down the whole length of the next to wrap under the heart only to have to find its way up to the throat.
This can be seen in Gifaffes whose Larynx nerve is 3.6 metres long.
This is not evidence for intellgent design but natural selection through the promotion of useful traits.
As the advantage of long neck is diverse animals grew the larygial nerve did not get the memo and still goes in this absurd journey.
There are many other numerous examples of design flaws that could only be the result of natural selection.

One can argue that that is God's intention to design and change the natural features of animals, humans, dinosaurs, etc.

No you cannot.
Because if there was any intelligence invloved it would have not made such a dumb error. ANd this error appears in every creature with a neck

[bahman]

In fish the larynx nerve is short as it serves the gills. But as amphibians developed and the gills transformed to be vestiges the pathway of that nerve continued through the aortic loop. What was perfectly efficent in a fish became ridiculous in long necked animals.
In a dinosaur that nerve has to travel from the brain down the whole length of the next to wrap under the heart only to have to find its way up to the throat.
This can be seen in Gifaffes whose Larynx nerve is 3.6 metres long.
This is not evidence for intellgent design but natural selection through the promotion of useful traits.
As the advantage of long neck is diverse animals grew the larygial nerve did not get the memo and still goes in this absurd journey.
There are many other numerous examples of design flaws that could only be the result of natural selection.

One can argue that that is God's intention to design and change the natural features of animals, humans, dinosaurs, etc.

No you cannot.
Because if there was any intelligence invloved it would have not made such a dumb error. ANd this error appears in every creature with a neck

God's creation is not perfect!

[Sculptor]

One can argue that that is God's intention to design and change the natural features of animals, humans, dinosaurs, etc.

No you cannot.
Because if there was any intelligence invloved it would have not made such a dumb error. ANd this error appears in every creature with a neck

God's creation is not perfect!

What a stupid respoonse.

[bahman]

No you cannot.
Because if there was any intelligence invloved it would have not made such a dumb error. ANd this error appears in every creature with a neck

God's creation is not perfect!

What a stupid respoonse.

You are talking about a perfect God and a perfect creation that I am not.

[Sculptor]

God's creation is not perfect!

What a stupid respoonse.

You are talking about a perfect God and a perfect creation that I am not.

No not even that.
We are done here