tintingz:


You're still not getting the point.

The point is not passing their genes, octopus do lay many eggs, the point is the mating process. An octopus will have one night stand and they die shortly after that while other specie don't.

If there's a designer that's intelligent, what intelligence or purpose is behind this?

This make sense in a naturalism point of view, but I've not seen any sense in the theists view that claim everything has a purpose.

1. Organisms are not designed to exist forever.
2. How they die is not important if they are able to successfully propagate.
3. Do you think the designer need the male Octopus or the male chamelion or male praying mantis for anything?
4. When the male organism die in this case, are they wasted? Are the males in short supply?

Did I not give you an example of the Apollo Mission. Three stages of rockets and these stages are DISPOSED in the launch of the rocket. I'd it a bad design?

shadeyinka:

Are you insinuating that all species are evolving aimlessly in no particular direction?
This your theory goes against what Darwin will call survival of the fittest. I wish you can find a link to support your claim that organisms do not need any external factors to evolve.

Evolution is not a process with a goal in mind however selection pressures constrict what the organism will eventually be.

That is not what Darwin claimed nor did I claim that organisms do not need any external factors to evolve, don't put words in our mouth.

You very well understand what I'm saying. If without the knowledge of hindsight, all we have are skeletons of the Black Race, the Caucasian, the Abogerin, the Asian (Chinese) races alone. Would we not have concluded they they probably evolved from one to another? That's the point. Skeletons/Fossil's lead no where?

You cannot be comparing the skeletons of humans as a set with skeletons of different species as a set, that's like comparing different colored cubes as a set with different quadilaterals as a set.

The initial question from me was:
Changes in kinds are demonstrable scientifically. It's a form of selection that is true.
BUT
Is there a single scientific evidence for a change in species through evolution you know?

You replied with:

Kinds is not a scientific term so maybe rephrase?


You asked for what the term kinds means and I gave you with examples. And also showed you that kinds is equivalent to breeds .

I have given you the examples.

You used the term selection pressures. Don't you think it contradicts the fact that threats/pressures may not be needed for evolution to take place?

How many times do I need to repeat that threats are not the only selection pressures?

When mutations happen to DNA, do they result into benefiting properties in the specie?
Eg. Do you think a specie could have a superior property when you irradiate it's sperm/egg to nuclear radiation?
When a person has XXY gene, instead of XX or XY, does it give a superior property to the specie?

How then will you just assume that changes in the DNA will gravitate into producing offspring of higher virility?

Where did superiority enter this?

About the Academy of Science: they are not infallible and some of us dare think differently!

Exactly, they'll gladly welcome your effort to prove them wrong.

shadeyinka:

1. Organisms are not designed to exist forever.
2. How they die is not important if they are able to successfully propagate.
3. Do you think the designer need the male Octopus or the male chamelion or male praying mantis for anything?
4. When the male organism die in this case, are they wasted? Are the males in short supply?

Did I not give you an example of the Apollo Mission. Three stages of rockets and these stages are DISPOSED in the launch of the rocket. I'd it a bad design?

Everything you said here still point to a purposeless design from a designer that has no purpose or intelligence.

There are specie that mate for long term and there are specie that mate for just once. What's the Justification for making one this way and the other another way? What's the Intelligence behind it? Why does a male octopus needs to die after mating, why is it designed to go that route?

As for the rocket part, we've seen in movies how spaceship are more perfectly designed like the X-men jet that needs no dropping of any machines to reach the space, they have these ideas in movies but "we're not perfect" enough to put this into reality, maybe not now. So no the rocket isn't a perfect design, can be a good design but not perfect.

You're not addressing my premise properly, my main argument is the need of an intelligent design and why do you think nature is purposely designed?

shadeyinka:
Here was what you quoted:
If it was evolution, shouldn't such animals like the praying mantis disappear from the surface of the earth?

My argument was that the design has fulfilled it's purpose if the praying mantis has not gone out of extinction

You obviously don't understand what you wrote just as you do not understand that the rich man was missing the most essential thing he needed was treasure in heaven.

shadeyinka:
I was just wondering how the Porcupine happened to EVOLVE it's sharp quills. And how the Bat happened to grow its wings.

The story probably goes like this:
In the rat family, there was commotion as snakes, dogs, hyaenas, cats and all the small carnivores began to feast on them.

So, they had a meeting and the vote was should they evolve into a Bird by turning their silky hairs to feathers OR turn the silky hairs into weapons of mass stabbing.

The argument raged on for a long time and only the porcupine tribe of rat decided to evolve their hairs into spears. The Ratonia tribe of rats decided to maintain status-quo while the Batilia tribe decided to grow wings and become birdlike.

According to the law of selection: by now, the Ratonia family should be extinct but they are not.

Scientific effort is still on to see how such feat was made possible. I would want to use the same means to evolve myself into Obama or Trump.

Any good idea will do. Thanks

The link is so you can bother to educate yourself about evolution instead of making things up in your head. But of course you don't have to educate yourself. Just don't expect to be taken seriously by those who do bother.

budaatum:

You obviously don't understand what you wrote just as you do not understand that the rich man was missing the most essential thing he needed was treasure in heaven.



The link is so you can bother to educate yourself about evolution instead of making things up in your head. But of course you don't have to educate yourself. Just don't expect to be taken seriously by those who do bother.

You have started again!
Mr Evolution,
You've just stood by a theory as if it is a PROVEN fact.

An agreement of though does not mean CORRECTNESS!

shadeyinka:

You have started again!
Mr Evolution,
You've just stood by a theory as if it is a PROVEN fact.

An agreement of though does not mean CORRECTNESS!

It is a proven fact. Even YHWH evolved into Jesus Christ and did not die off because of it. You'd know this if you read your Bible from 'In the Beginning' to the end.

tintingz:


Everything you said here still point to a purposeless design from a designer that has no purpose or intelligence.

The person who doesn't understand rocketry and rocket propulsion would assume that rockets having different stages rather than one is purposeless and is not done from intelligence.
I understand your position.

tintingz:

There are specie that mate for long term and there are specie that mate for just once. What's the Justification for making one this way and the other another way? What's the Intelligence behind it? Why does a male octopus needs to die after mating, why is it designed to go that route?

Variety!.
Engineers still build to this day Monocycles, Bicycles, Motorcycles, Cars, Lorries, Trucks, Trailers even with advanced technologies.

Why?
Why does bicycles exist in the age when there are petrol engines and electric motors? Don't engineers know that it's more comfortable to seat in a supercar?

Do you thinks it's the designers purpose to keep the octopus alive indefinitely? The primary purpose of species is to GROW and REPRODUCE. If the design purpose is attained, then you have no case.

In your crack at design, you fail to notice that this trait would have through evolution produced much larger and stronger Males: who cannot be constricted by the female?

Everything created has its purpose in diversity.

tintingz:

As for the rocket part, we've seen in movies how spaceship are more perfectly designed like the X-men jet that needs no dropping of any machines to reach the space, they have these ideas in movies but "we're not perfect" enough to put this into reality, maybe not now. So no the rocket isn't a perfect design, can be a good design but not perfect.

You're not addressing my premise properly, my main argument is the need of an intelligent design and why do you think nature is purposely designed?

Do you understand why rockets have to be in multiple stages?
It seems you don't!

I think you should have asked why a perfect design incorporated the FOOD CHAIN? Couldn't God have made everything to depend on photosynthesis? That's like the stupidity of your argument.

budaatum:

It is a proven fact. Even YHWH evolved into Jesus Christ and did not die off because of it. You'd know this if you read your Bible from 'In the Beginning' to the end.

1. Is the theory of evolution PROVEN fact?
2. If we agree about a theory in the accademy of science, does that mean CORRECTNESS!
YHWH evolved into Jesus Christ?
Over how many millions of years and were there sub species along the way?
Don't go beyond what the scriptures teaches!

shadeyinka:

The person who doesn't understand rocketry and rocket propulsion would assume that rockets having different stages rather than one is purposeless and is not done from intelligence.
I understand your position.

Rocket having stages has it purpose but doesn't mean it's perfectly designed! Is there any other existing model? No.

An octopus mating have it purpose which is to produce but doesn't mean the process of mating is perfectly designed and doesn't mean the designer have a purposeful justifications for this mating process.

Variety!.
Engineers still build to this day Monocycles, Bicycles, Motorcycles, Cars, Lorries, Trucks, Trailers even with advanced technologies.

Why?
Why does bicycles exist in the age when there are petrol engines and electric motors? Don't engineers know that it's more comfortable to seat in a supercar?

Not everyone can afford cars. Bicycles are used for other reasons. This is flawed.

It's like asking why is there still button phones when there are touch screen phones.

Do you thinks it's the designers purpose to keep the octopus alive indefinitely? The primary purpose of species is to GROW and REPRODUCE. If the design purpose is attained, then you have no case.

So why does the design keep other specie alive after mating?

In your crack at design, you fail to notice that this trait would have through evolution produced much larger and stronger Males: who cannot be constricted by the female?

Everything created has its purpose in diversity.

Why does a perfect designer created everything diverse, why does it favor some and doesn't favor some?

Why does a chimp mate for long term but octopus cannot, why this?

Do you understand why rockets have to be in multiple stages?
It seems you don't!

Yes I do which isn't a perfect model.

Imagine you're a perfect designer, how would you create a rocket?

I think you should have asked why a perfect design incorporated the FOOD CHAIN? Couldn't God have made everything to depend on photosynthesis? That's like the stupidity of your argument.

God is a perfect design, but we see imperfect designs.

tintingz:
Rocket having stages has it purpose but doesn't mean it's perfectly designed! Is there any other existing model? No.

It is a perfect design. The multiple stages was incorporated to make efficient use of fuel and minimize weight. It wasnt done because it's an imperfect design. It actually is the most efficient fuel burning design.

tintingz:

An octopus mating have it purpose which is to produce but doesn't mean the process of mating is perfectly designed and doesn't mean the designer have a purposeful justifications for this mating process.

You still don't understand design except by your speculation.
Perfect design doesn't have to follow your whims. If we go by your rules of "perfect design", all animals would be as intelligent as human beings, all animals would be as strong as an elephant, all animals would be as fast the cheetah, your perfect design will incorporate all animals being omnivores etc.

Can you see how perfect your world would have been?

tintingz:

Not very can afford cars, bicycles are used for other reasons. This is flawed.

It's like asking why is there still button phones when there are touch screen phones.

Sorry, I have a car yet still use two Bicycles. It's not all about poverty. It's about diversity, it's about functionality. Sometimes, my bicycle is more useful to me than my car

Your argument of touch screen rather than buttons are to my favour. Both of them have their place in electronics. It's called design and egonometrics.

tintingz:

So why does the design keep other specie alive after mating?

Why does a perfect designer created everything diverse, why does it favor some and doesn't favor some?

Why does a chimp mate for long term but octopus cannot, why this?

Yes I do which isn't a perfect model.

Imagine you're a perfect designer, how would you create a rocket?

God is a perfect design, but we see imperfect designs.

Ask the designer if you want to know why he designed some animals weak and slow while others are strong and fast.

If every animal was optimized for your kind of perfection, would there exist the food chain?

On earth, if you are to use liquid or solid state rocket, as a perfect designer, I will use multiple stages. For this is the most efficient in terms of energy expenditure and cost.

You didn't answer my question!
Evolution should have made the male Octopus twice the size of the female Octopus and carnibalism during copulation would have been extint. Why has evolution kept mute?

LordReed:

Evolution is not a process with a goal in mind however selection pressures constrict what the organism will eventually be.

That is not what Darwin claimed nor did I claim that organisms do not need any external factors to evolve, don't put words in our mouth.

If evolution is not a process with a goal in mind, is there any feasibilities that the human limbs could increase to 8? In an aimless evolutionary trend, this should be possible over some 100million years don't you think so?

There must be a goal to evolution! That's what we've been taught: that the giraffe grew it's long neck to be able to adapt to eating leaves from trees. Some moths have camouflaging wings that matched the forest tree barks to escape predatory birds, amphibians grewn lungs as they were trying to leave the aquatic environments for land etc.

So, would you please provide a link evidence that says evolution is a process without a goal in mind?

LordReed:

You cannot be comparing the skeletons of humans as a set with skeletons of different species as a set, that's like comparing different colored cubes as a set with different quadilaterals as a set.

Yes you can! The scenario is if you are not aware of "breeds" of human beings but you were able to find only bones probably 1million years old. To help you, the pigmies have heights that are average of four feet, the facial structure of the Caucasian and the black race are different. The Caucasians are generally almost 6feet while the bones of the chinko people are about five feet. Will you not from the bones conclude that they probably evolved from one stage to another?

LordReed:

I have given you the examples.

No you haven't: the question again!

The initial question from me was:
Changes in kinds breed are demonstrable scientifically. It's a form of selection that is true.
BUT
Is there a single scientific evidence for a change in species through evolution you know?

I have rephrased by putting in the word breed in place of kind

LordReed:

How many times do I need to repeat that threats are not the only selection pressures?

Where did superiority enter this?

Exactly, they'll gladly welcome your effort to prove them wrong.

Threats is just one aspect of selection pressure. Selection pressures are motivations for evolution/change occuring.

Evolution cannot happen without a change in the genetic make-up of a specie. Has there been a change in the genetic makeup of any speice you know that had produced a superior being?

As far as I know, you can correct me: most genetic mutation lead to either sterility, deformity or lower intelligence. How then can evolution produce species' that are better adapted to their environment?

shadeyinka:

If evolution is not a process with a goal in mind, is there any feasibilities that the human limbs could increase to 8? In an aimless evolutionary trend, this should be possible over some 100million years don't you think so?

There must be a goal to evolution! That's what we've been taught: that the giraffe grew it's long neck to be able to adapt to eating leaves from trees. Some moths have camouflaging wings that matched the forest tree barks to escape predatory birds, amphibians grewn lungs as they were trying to leave the aquatic environments for land etc.

So, would you please provide a link evidence that says evolution is a process without a goal in mind?

Look up the meaning of constraint.

Evolution describes changes to the inherited traits of organisms across generations. Evolutionary change is not directed towards a goal, nor is it solely dependent on natural selection to shape its path. Ecology, as with any biological discipline, is rooted in evolutionary concepts and best understood in its terms.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evolution-is-change-in-the-inherited-traits-15164254/

I hope the next time I ask you for proof of something you don't beat around the bush.

Yes you can! The scenario is if you are not aware of "breeds" of human beings but you were able to find only bones probably 1million years old. To help you, the pigmies have heights that are average of four feet, the facial structure of the Caucasian and the black race are different. The Caucasians are generally almost 6feet while the bones of the chinko people are about five feet. Will you not from the bones conclude that they probably evolved from one stage to another?

No you will not because that is not how it works.

No you haven't: the question again!

The initial question from me was:
Changes in kinds breed are demonstrable scientifically. It's a form of selection that is true.
BUT
Is there a single scientific evidence for a change in species through evolution you know?

I have rephrased by putting in the word breed in place of kind

I have given you examples so I don't know what you are arguing here. A unicellar organism with no multicellular traits in its DNA evolves into a multicellular organism and you are saying no?

Threats is just one aspect of selection pressure. Selection pressures are motivations for evolution/change occuring.

Evolution cannot happen without a change in the genetic make-up of a specie. Has there been a change in the genetic makeup of any speice you know that had produced a superior being?

As far as I know, you can correct me: most genetic mutation lead to either sterility, deformity or lower intelligence. How then can evolution produce species' that are better adapted to their environment?

See the aforementioned unicellular organism.

Evolution says nothing about superiority so it is an irrelevant term here.

Yes we can correct you, not all mutations are harmful. Here are 4 examples: https://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

shadeyinka:

It is a perfect design. The multiple stages was incorporated to make efficient use of fuel and minimize weight. It wasnt done because it's an imperfect design. It actually is the most efficient fuel burning design.

No, it's not. We already have another model of spacecraft model which doesn't need to go through those stress of dispatching some engines, we can't build it because we don't have the tools too. A plane can fly but doesn't have the amount of force to go outer space but a rocket is built with multiple engines with it force to archive that. I don't think NASA see that as a perfect model, a good model yes but not a perfect one. Why do you think astronauts are scared of flying those rockets?

If an engine failed to dispatch, that's the end.

You still don't understand design except by your speculation.
Perfect design doesn't have to follow your whims. If we go by your rules of "perfect design", all animals would be as intelligent as human beings, all animals would be as strong as an elephant, all animals would be as fast the cheetah, your perfect design will incorporate all animals being omnivores etc.

Can you see how perfect your world would have been?

Why can't all animals be like that? Isn't this what I'm asking you? You as a designer choose to design some animals unfavoured and some favoured? Not that this animals just start living, they struggled and adapted to their environment while many have gone extinct and many animals have not even fully adapted to their environment, we're still struggling to survive. Do you thought of this or you just design it randomly?

Define "perfect" maybe you don't know what perfect is.

Sorry, I have a car yet still use two Bicycles. It's not all about poverty. It's about diversity, it's about functionality. Sometimes, my bicycle is more useful to me than my car

Exactly, you have reasons you use bicycle even when you have cars, circumstances play role here. In this case you have both.

Your argument of touch screen rather than buttons are to my favour. Both of them have their place in electronics. It's called design and egonometrics.

A touch screen is far advanced than button screen, button screen is very limited as you can only make calls, send SMS while touch screen can do that and many other things.

Or let's do it this way, you designed two phones and give it to particular people to use, phone A can only make one call and die off while phone B can still work after multiple calls, both works for calling but one is favoured than the other, do you have any reason you did this?

Ask the designer if you want to know why he designed some animals weak and slow while others are strong and fast.

Lol, so no answer. I will take that as no purpose or reasonable thought for the design.

If every animal was optimized for your kind of perfection, would there exist the food chain?

How did you thought of which one should be the food? And why? Why must species go through that struggle by eating each other to survive, a perfect designer has no other options?

On earth, if you are to use liquid or solid state rocket, as a perfect designer, I will use multiple stages. For this is the most efficient in terms of energy expenditure and cost.

Good

So if I design my rocket with no multiple stages and works well, am I not more perfect designer than you?

You didn't answer my question!
Evolution should have made the male Octopus twice the size of the female Octopus and carnibalism during copulation would have been extint. Why has evolution kept mute?

I don't seem to get your question.

Are you asking why octopus hasn't gone extinct despite the way they die after mating?

LordReed:


Look up the meaning of constraint.

Evolution describes changes to the inherited traits of organisms across generations. Evolutionary change is not directed towards a goal, nor is it solely dependent on natural selection to shape its path. Ecology, as with any biological discipline, is rooted in evolutionary concepts and best understood in its terms.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evolution-is-change-in-the-inherited-traits-15164254/

I hope the next time I ask you for proof of something you don't beat around the bush.



No you will not because that is not how it works.



I have given you examples so I don't know what you are arguing here. A unicellar organism with no multicellular traits in its DNA evolves into a multicellular organism and you are saying no?





See the aforementioned unicellular organism.

Evolution says nothing about superiority so it is an irrelevant term here.

Yes we can correct you, not all mutations are harmful. Here are 4 examples: https://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

Exactly. Evolution has no goal or that ultimates purpose that requires an intelligent design, this is what I'm trying to point out to Shadeyinka.

LordReed:


Look up the meaning of constraint.

Evolution describes changes to the inherited traits of organisms across generations. Evolutionary change is not directed towards a goal, nor is it solely dependent on natural selection to shape its path. Ecology, as with any biological discipline, is rooted in evolutionary concepts and best understood in its terms.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evolution-is-change-in-the-inherited-traits-15164254/

I hope the next time I ask you for proof of something you don't beat around the bush.

You certainly did your home work!

Evolution like a drunk man staggering aimlessly but just discovered that it made all the right decisions along its way. And when the factor of 100s of billions of years are factored in, everything is possible.

Oh, it makes sense except that the odds are massively great that it's not only about time but the number of specimens must have been infinity great for any positive outcome to take place.

LordReed:

No you will not because that is not how it works.

In the place of no evidence and drive to advance a theory, a single jawbone has been used in the past to form a link between species!

LordReed:

I have given you examples so I don't know what you are arguing here. A unicellar organism with no multicellular traits in its DNA evolves into a multicellular organism and you are saying no?

See the aforementioned unicellular organism.

Evolution says nothing about superiority so it is an irrelevant term here.

Yes we can correct you, not all mutations are harmful. Here are 4 examples: https://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

No, you are not quite correct. What the publication you quoted said was that

All told, by surveying the active genes in 21 choanoflagellate species, King's group found that these "simple" organisms have some 350 gene families once thought to be exclusive to multicellular animals, they reported on 31 May in eLife. If, as she and others believe, choanoflagellates offer a glimpse of the one-celled ancestor of animals, that organism was already well-equipped for multicellular life.

In other words even unicellular cells already have within them genes that could make them multicellular.

As per the so called beneficial mutations, are they really mutations or inherent property of their genetic makeup?

A black couple gave birth to a blond blue eyed daughter. The husband and wife are Nigerians with no single white ancestry. This child was no albino and could pass on the gene to her own offspring.

The explanation was that:

She’s the product of long-dormant white genes, passed on to her by her parents, that might have been carried by their predecessors for generations without surfacing until now.

In other words it's like the possibilities of physical and biological traits in a person are almost endless. But most are recessive.

Recessive traits like red hair can skip generations because they can hide out in a carrier behind a dominant trait. The recessive trait needs another carrier and a bit of luck to be seen. This means that it can sometimes take a few generations to finally make its presence known.

In other words, if it is in the genes unless you have "a perfect gene" to compare with, you cannot prove that a new dominant gene is a product of mutations.

shadeyinka:

You certainly did your home work!

Evolution like a drunk man staggering aimlessly but just discovered that it made all the right decisions along its way. And when the factor of 100s of billions of years are factored in, everything is possible.

Oh, it makes sense except that the odds are massively great that it's not only about time but the number of specimens must have been infinity great for any positive outcome to take place.

Of course! What amount of organic material do you think was available to be transformed into fossil fuels?

In the place of no evidence and drive to advance a theory, a single jawbone has been used in the past to form a link between species!

What jawbone are you referring to?

No, you are not quite correct. What the publication you quoted said was that


In other words even unicellular cells already have within them genes that could make them multicellular.

As per the so called beneficial mutations, are they really mutations or inherent property of their genetic makeup?

A black couple gave birth to a blond blue eyed daughter. The husband and wife are Nigerians with no single white ancestry. This child was no albino and could pass on the gene to her own offspring.

The explanation was that:

She’s the product of long-dormant white genes, passed on to her by her parents, that might have been carried by their predecessors for generations without surfacing until now.

In other words it's like the possibilities of physical and biological traits in a person are almost endless. But most are recessive.

Recessive traits like red hair can skip generations because they can hide out in a carrier behind a dominant trait. The recessive trait needs another carrier and a bit of luck to be seen. This means that it can sometimes take a few generations to finally make its presence known.

In other words, if it is in the genes unless you have "a perfect gene" to compare with, you cannot prove that a new dominant gene is a product of mutations.

You are quoting a completely different thing. This:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39558-8#Sec2

is the article I am referencing.

tintingz:


No, it's not. We already have another model of spacecraft model which doesn't need to go through those stress of dispatching some engines, we can't build it because we don't have the tools too. A plane can fly but doesn't have the amount of force to go outer space but a rocket is built with multiple engines with it force to archive that. I don't think NASA see that as a perfect model, a good model yes but not a perfect one. Why do you think astronauts are scared of flying those rockets?

If an engine failed to dispatch, that's the end.

Let me break it down for you. If you must leave the earth's gravitational field for the moon, you must project the rocket up with a velocity higher than " the escape velocity of the earth". The power and quantity of fuel required to attain this velocity is very very high.

Now after burning the fuel for the second stage of your journey, you have a useless weight of empty tank of fuel and oxidants to contend with. These tanks are dropped to reduce the weight of the rocket on its journey to the moon.

I hope you now understand why it's an important part of design. Reduction of useless weight to achieve the Objective efficiently is the purpose of the multistage.

Of course scientists are still working on the possibility but the options are still at best theoretical till today.

tintingz:

Why can't all animals be like that? Isn't this what I'm asking you? You as a designer choose to design some animals unfavoured and some favoured? Not that this animals just start living, they struggled and adapted to their environment while many have gone extinct and many animals have not even fully adapted to their environment, we're still struggling to survive. Do you thought of this or you just design it randomly?

Define "perfect" maybe you don't know what perfect is.

Then there would be just one specie on earth with titanium bones, unbreakable skin, unlikable, never sick, never weak being.

Perfect world!

tintingz:

Exactly, you have reasons you use bicycle even when you have cars, circumstances play role here. In this case you have both.

A touch screen is far advanced than button screen, button screen is very limited as you can only make calls, send SMS while touch screen can do that and many other things.

Or let's do it this way, you designed two phones and give it to particular people to use, phone A can only make one call and die off while phone B can still work after multiple calls, both works for calling but one is favoured than the other, do you have any reason you did this?

Everything has its own purpose!
Even the most advanced USA fighter plane has buttons and not screen touch for firing trigger!

If the purpose is accomplished, the design is good.

Why do you think toilet papers are designed to be disposable? Do you think it is a bad design?

Would you rather want a reusable toilet rolls?

I hope you now understand that the purpose is more important than what you think should be possible

tintingz:

Lol, so no answer. I will take that as no purpose or reasonable thought for the design.

How did you thought of which one should be the food? And why? Why must species go through that struggle by eating each other to survive, a perfect designer has no other options?

Good

So if I design my rocket with no multiple stages and works well, am I not more perfect designer than you?

Re-design your own world!

If you could design your own rocket, build it and it works efficiently as per design better than the existing one : you are a genius and a better designer than me.

tintingz:

I don't seem to get your question.

Are you asking why octopus hasn't gone extinct despite the way they die after mating?

Evolution should have solved the problems of octopus carnibalism

shadeyinka:

Let me break it down for you. If you must leave the earth's gravitational field for the moon, you must project the rocket up with a velocity higher than " the escape velocity of the earth". The power and quantity of fuel required to attain this velocity is very very high.

Now after burning the fuel for the second stage of your journey, you have a useless weight of empty tank of fuel and oxidants to contend with. These tanks are dropped to reduce the weight of the rocket on its journey to the moon.

I hope you now understand why it's an important part of design. Reduction of useless weight to achieve the Objective efficiently is the purpose of the multistage.

Of course scientists are still working on the possibility but the options are still at best theoretical till today.

We're still saying same thing. You just repeated what i said in another way.

Ok, what happens after science discover more advanced way to travel space, will this rocket today be a perfect design?

Then there would be just one specie on earth with titanium bones, unbreakable skin, unlikable, never sick, never weak being.

Perfect world!

Isn't there a world already with this in Abrahamic Religions?

There's already a perfect world depicted by Religious people in afterlife, why do they think this world is perfectly designed?

Everything has its own purpose!
Even the most advanced USA fighter plane has buttons and not screen touch for firing trigger!

Because they want to be careful igniting the firearm and secondly touch screen can easily crack and misfunction.

If the purpose is accomplished, the design is good.

Good is different from perfect.

Why do you think toilet papers are designed to be disposable? Do you think it is a bad design?

Would you rather want a reusable toilet rolls?

I'm not talking about bad or good design, I'm talking about a perfect design.

Why do I need toilet paper if I'm not a perfectly designed? Why is the toilet paper disposable if it's not perfectly design? I've a perfect theory where toilet paper has a way of breaking or dissolving any particles on it and dry it off and it's good to use again.

Don't be surprised when we have reusable toilet papers in the future.

I hope you now understand that the purpose is more important than what you think should be possible

Purpose doesn't even have any purpose. Why does species produce and die? To what end purpose or goal?

Re-design your own world!

I'm not a God and I'm not running after any perfect world, I'm just attacking theists claim on perfect design.

If you could design your own rocket, build it and it works efficiently as per design better than the existing one : you are a genius and a better designer than me.

Good.

Evolution should have solved the problems of octopus carnibalism

How? Does evolution have some sentient mind of it own?

shadeyinka:

1. Is the theory of evolution PROVEN fact?
2. If we agree about a theory in the accademy of science, does that mean CORRECTNESS!
YHWH evolved into Jesus Christ?
Over how many millions of years and were there sub species along the way?
Don't go beyond what the scriptures teaches!

Evolution is a fact and a theory. It has happened and will continue to happen.

As for what "the scripture teaches", I think you mean, 'what one understands', since its understanding, along with our capabilities to understand it, evolve over time, as Jesus taught when he said he "did not come to abolish the law", but to evolve it, which you should be doing too if only you had read the book properly, which you very clearly haven't. If you had, you'd have understood how God evolves into Jesus Christ.

tintingz:


Exactly. Evolution has no goal or that ultimates purpose that requires an intelligent design, this is what I'm trying to point out to Shadeyinka.

May be the intelligence was too lazy to actually think things through so decided to use the most roundabout way to achieve its aims. LMFAO!

Tamaratonye1:

"One that created"? How do you know our world was created? I'd like to know how our world was created by any cosmic overlord. Perhaps, you can demonstrate this?

No. You will be the one to show me things that magically come into existence without having been created.

[s]Ok. But you have some magical abilities that lets you communicate with this so called "Creator". Some of your type even claim to know what it likes and dislikes, and how it acts etc.[/s]

Oga just say you don't have any objective evidence for claims. I will not beat you lol

The struck out lines make no sense.
Did you not read where I stated the evidence we've got is our scriptures? It's up to you to believe them, or not, but who gives a hoot about your beliefs.

LordReed:


So the idea that evolution is an atheist propaganda is hogwash. There is nothing atheist about evolution, it is bare faced fact.

A fact with no concrete proof. Yeah, right.

tintingz:

How? Does evolution have some sentient mind of it own?

He thinks people see evolution as he sees God, when in truth, he sees evolution as opposition to his God.

tintingz:


What's creative when you design something that when they f*ck it's their death sentence? What purpose is that for?

Probably a lesson for the deep thinkers that your Creator could have also made you that way. So give thanks to your God for not making you a mindless, fucck-to-death animal.

LordReed:


May be the intelligence was too lazy to actually think things through so decided to use the most roundabout way to achieve its aims. LMFAO!

Lol. Maybe drunk.

aadoiza:

A fact with no concrete proof. Yeah, right.

Your denalism won't make the evidence disappear. They'll continue to find more of it.

tintingz:
Lol. Maybe drunk.

True, see how he supposedly turned water to wine, the best wine sef. The guy na expert! LMFAO!

aadoiza:

Probably a lesson for the deep thinkers that your Creator could have also made you that way. So give thanks to your God for not making you a mindless, fucck-to-death animal.

Why should I thank such God? That's selfishness.

LordReed:


True, see how he supposedly turned water to wine, the best wine sef. The guy na expert! LMFAO!

Lol

budaatum:

He thinks people see evolution as he sees God, when in truth, he sees evolution as opposition to his God.

Exactly!

budaatum:

Actually, scientists, as in those who use their senses, are "the No 1 peddlers of evolution", and if you trully read your Bible starting at Genesis and working your way to the end instead of the a la carte reading most do in church, you'd see YHWH evolved into Jesus Christ.

So those who are not scientists don't use their senses? You lot just can stop making up silly counter-critisism punch lines.
I'm sure if you take a study of the No 1 peddlers of evolution on this forum, the atheists will be number one. Extend your study to YouTube and follow up the comments, if will still be atheists. An atheist scientist will count as an atheist.

Stop making bullshit up in your head! YHWH evolved into Jesus as you evolved into your children abi? SMH

In your desperate attempt to stick up for the foolish
evolution theory, you erroneously gave an example of a higher consciousness YHWH morphing into a lower consciousness Jesus. Perhaps your animal ancestors were of a higher consciousness than you are. Well that may not be far-fetched judging by your gullibility in the face of the yeye theory.

tintingz:


Why should I thank such God? That's selfishness.

That's not selfishness. He's just showing his mightiness in the many possibilities