Search results

Other nonsensical statements made by ShoeshineBoy aside, this one below is completely wrong and tells what kind of belief he has (ie, anti-science rather than "love science"): It's obvious that your definition of "impeccable logic" contains neither.

Can you stop saying things that are plain wrong? Hint: If you don't know something, don't comment on it.

For someone who claims to "love science," this post is shockingly ignorant. Number of universities by country: 1 India 8,407 2 United States 5,758 3 Argentina 1,705 4 Spain 1,415 5 Mexico 1,341 6 Bangladesh 1,268 7 Indonesia 1,236 8 Japan 1,223 9 France 1,062 10 China 1,054 I...

Clearly you have no clue what you're talking about. Let me repeat, the forces you listed above are NOT "coefficients." And there are NOT forty of these forces. You may love science but you clearly don't know it. The "coefficients" you listed are not all independent of each other. Either...

Do you really think that by piling up words that you have no clue of, you can appear intelligent? Actually it makes you look foolish. 1. Planets are formed "after 3rd supernovae?" Who taught you that? Ask for you tuition back! 2. The electromagnetic, strong and weak forces, along with...

This is an amazing retreat. So all the designer wanted to do, when he designed the world, was to see how "the evolution story" unfold? Do you mean that the designer did NOT design eyes so that we can see, did NOT design legs so that we can run? Did he just simply design some primitive, single...

All generalizations are false. :D

You want to talk about snowflakes again? You sure have a bad memory. What we disagreed, was not whether there is randomness. We disagreed on whether randomness could be the cause of patterns. You were adamant that "random ignorant chance" could not have led to the complex patterns in...

LMAO Read your Bible and come back and tell me that God does not interfere with floods...

You obviously missed when z10 and I debated self-organization from randomness, which he didn't think was possible. And evidently you also don't know the difference between self-organization and miracles. BTW, thinking is optional, too.

So instead of being a "designer," your creator is a tinker? Is he/she tinkering with the lightening? With the floods? With the diseases?

Good lord, I didn't know that "nothing" was created by God...

This is truly laughable. If humans developed a "super intelligent" brain to understand the things of God, why do you think humans developed masturbation skills? To understand pornography?

It's clear that you have no clue what evolution is. Go read Darwin then we can discuss. BTW, the human brain didn't evolve from vacuum in a few million years. It evolved from a monkey brain, which was already far superior than any machine we can build today, if survival was the metric.

Are you saying that pubic hair and and armpit hair are results of "certain amount of randomness" rather than design? What about blue eyes? Are those results of randomness or design? Where do you draw the line?

You keep evading the question. Did your genius create man and all other "byproducts?" Why did he/she create those "byproducts" if the intension was to let them go extinct? Isn't that a sign of a lazy, incompetent, and irresponsible designer?

Lol, you don't know what evolution is and here you are discussing the weakness of evolution? Evolution has no purpose. It just happens.

Really? What's the use of your pubic hair and armpit hair?

You're the one showing the bias here. I gave you counter examples and you did not address them. Are humans extinct? You're answering the wrong questions.

This is wrong on two points. 1. If life was ever designed with "error tolerance" in mind, then the designer was also grossly incompetent in that regard. Note the millions of species that went extinct - certainly they were not "designed" with sufficient error tolerance. 2. You missed my...