Creation-Evolution-Creative Days-Age of the Earth-Humanoid Fossils-Great Flood

[Arauna]

19 hours ago, AlanF said:

then proclaims her righteousness and superior intellect.

I have said no such thing!  I am an ordinary pensioner - to your standards a nincompoop because in your mind all JWs are idiots. ......  the only thing I am better at than you is: I think things through step by step.  This has helped me tremendously in my life.

Nature had tremendous foresight or predictive skills: almost godlike in scope

By coincidence, not only did the male develop perfectly and separately from the female but also developed in perfect compatibility - each with different functions (eggs/sperm and many other differences) which complement each other perfectly; they developed simultaneously and yet separately by chance and were ready for each other at the same time.  Did nature 'plan' to develop both sex organs perfectly at the same time/ because it ‘knew’ what the species needed to survive?  These gaps are too many for logic conclusions – it favors blind belief on the part of evolutionists.

Additionally, if nature “knew ahead of time” how to cut and paste selected bits of DNA from other genera to duplicate the same functions in a different species together with totally new genes – does this not prove that nature has intelligence which can ‘decide” which parts to ‘cut and paste’ or save from one operating system onto another? Are evolutionists not simplifying the process so much that they are like a toddler who can shut his eyes to what he does not want to see?

To me - these coincidences are unexplainable miracles. Some evolutionists do acknowledge they still have NO leads as to how the sexual organs came to develop so perfectly in synchronization – yet function so differently while developing separately. Mathematical logarithms do not explain away the extreme complexity of the biological and chemical processes involved. Logarithms merely try to explain it away by “chance or possibility”  without taking into consideration the extreme complexity of the chemical building blocks themselves. This enlarges the pool of possibilities to “zero”.

If evolution were true: would nature not have selected the easiest way to survive instead of such a complex  way (2 partners) for the species?  Would it not have kept both sexes in one unit for better survival of the species such as found in simpler life forms? When one looks at the numerous different kinds of sex organs and their strange methods of pro-creation in many different species, then one comes to the conclusion that nature was indeed a theoretical God with access to a higher form of intelligence because it got it absolutely right over and over again. The different kinds of sex organs or procreation boggles the mind! And in all of these the parts function perfectly together – unexplained miracles – which defies critical thinking and logic.

Additionally - nature can count..... because half of the chromosomes (23) are in the male and the the female donates 23.... which gives 46.  Are you sure they developed separate by chance?  Lions have 38 in total..... 19 donated by female and 19 donated by male. Again - nature can count.  The sable antelope and the shrimp also has 46 chromosomes - same as humans.

There is a fern with 1440 chromosomes - 720 pairs........ it reproduces by spores.  The diversity in nature is too complex to explain away by "chance" 

The mathematics of hitting the jackpot spot-on over and over so many billions of times in a row seems like something with ‘foresight’ was manipulating the process.  

---

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Don't fall for that apology.

Not to worry. Ever since Dawkins wussed out with the British atheist busses, with placards saying “There probably is no God”—the “probably” because he was jellified of the Truth in Advertising law—I have lost interest in him.

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2009/10/atheists-buses-and-hellfire-buses.html

51 minutes ago, Arauna said:

The mathematics of hitting the jackpot spot-on over and over so many billions of times in a row seems like something with ‘foresight’ was manipulating the process.  

Yes. Of course.

[AlanF]

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

He would not have said it if it was not a possibility in his mind.

Allowing for a possibility is in no way the same as advocating for it -- which is what you lied about.

Easy to see if you're not completely stupid -- IF pigs could fly, how high could they go?

[AlanF]

54 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I have said no such thing! 

You imply it in almost every post -- especially those where you advocate for Young-Earth Creationism.

54 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I am an ordinary pensioner - to your standards a nincompoop because in your mind all JWs are idiots. ...... 

Nope. I know plenty who are not. You, on the other hand . . .

54 minutes ago, Arauna said:

the only thing I am better at than you is: I think things through step by step.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

What you really do is hook your nose onto clips given you by Young-Earth Creationists and, to a lesser extent, the JW leadership, follow them wherever they lead you, and then pretend that you're stepping along by yourself.

Here's proof:

54 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Nature had tremendous foresight or predictive skills: almost godlike in scope

. . .

---

Every word of this nonsense was borrowed from Young-Earth Creationists.

And you're too much of a very stupid apostate to accept the fact that your JW leaders have condemned these idiots.

[AlanF]

10 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Yes. Of course.

Nope. This is the fallacy of applying post-priori knowledge to a probabilistic situation, much like calculating the odds against True Tom Harley existing based on genetics. Such bogus calculations result in a near-zero probability that you exist. Yet here you are in all your glory.

Can you figure out why such calculations are bogus?

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

This is the fallacy of applying post-priori knowledge to a probabilistic situation,

Are you sure that you are not committing the fallacy of postulatum pig flyum? 

Bart Ehrman, though I disagree with him on ever so many points, did contribute one gem for the ages: “If you know a Latin phrase and also a perfectly fine English phrase that means the same thing, you should always use the Latin so people will know that you are educated.

You think that by attaching a learned label to something you can explain away nonsense? Here @Araunaand the mathematicians have you, and no wistful wand will wave it away.

[AlanF]

48 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Bart Ehrman, though I disagree with him on ever so many points, did contribute one gem for the ages: “If you know a Latin phrase and also a perfectly fine English phrase that means the same thing, you should always use the Latin so people will know that you are educated.

You're nearly as ignorant as your girlfriend.

"Post-priori" is a common phrase known to most non-Trumpists. Much like its counterpoint "a-priori". And as common as "et cetera".

It means "after the fact".

48 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You think that by attaching a learned label to something you can explain away nonsense? Here @Araunaand the mathematicians have you, and no wistful wand will wave it away.

Ok, your after-the-fact 'calculation' of probabilities is invalid. Understand?

Now see if you can answer my question: Can you figure out why such calculations are bogus?

If you think they're valid, then by all means give us a link to a valid presentation of such calculations by your vaunted mathematicians. Summarize them to prove you understand them.

Otherwise you're just blowing hot air out of your ass.

If you can't do that, you lose.

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

If you can't do that, you lose.

You are one strange bird to think that the purpose of life is to win or lose on a here today—gone tomorrow internet thread perhaps read by 20 people.

[AlanF]

9 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You are one strange bird to think that the purpose of life is to win or lose on a here today—gone tomorrow internet thread perhaps read by 20 people.

It means you lose the probability argument, moron.

Are you really that stupid, or just pretending?

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

It means you lose the probability argument, moron.

Are you really that stupid, or just pretending?

I lost nothing. I asked my mathematician friend, “What are the chances of life originating spontaneously?”

”Greater than that of all the atoms in the known universe,” he said.

I then followed up: “What are chances that Alan will leave his infantile personality behind and respond to disagreement like an adult?”

”Let’s take another look at that evolution question,” he said. “Maybe I was a little hasty,”

[Arauna]

9 hours ago, AlanF said:

means you lose the probability argument, moron.

You just don't get it....... do you?  And don't bother with more cursed name calling....... it rolls off our backs.  Cursing others is not a valid rebuttal........ lol.  You sound very desperate when you call us names

[TrueTomHarley]

Just now, Arauna said:

You just don't get it....... do you?  And don't bother with more cursed name calling....... it rolls off our backs.  Cursing others is not a valid rebuttal........ lol.  You sound very desperate when you call us names

The guy is a piece of work. Sometimes I fear his cherished evolution is true and that he is the final product. In that event, the end of all things will come far quicker than by any of the scenarios you have floated.