Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

Well, it's certainly true that I tend to be more 'pedantic' or 'precise' than you. Something to be proud of, so thanks.
I don't understand your angry little emoticon, since I neither shouted nor swore.

I wasn't necessarily referring to you....unless you refer to yourself as "some responder"? You very seldom respond here anyway. And when you do is is basically like trolling. Nit picking is tedious.

My point, however, was nothing to do with pedantry, but to ask you to either defend the accuracy of your source, or to admit its error. Instead, you quoted two more mini-articles from the same source and said that you had no doubts of its accuracy.

And that's why we "nit-pick" the "information" you provide. It is not reliable and often does not provide its own sources.

Quantity of information and posting is no substitute for quality.

Research is not difficult......people are free to disagree and be as pedantic as they like. I believe that the information is basically sound and as it is not covered in a lot of detail, they are free to fill in the gaps with whatever extra information they like. I did not publish scientific papers....I posted some very short articles that were true but not detailed.

 

[Olinda]

I wasn't necessarily referring to you....unless you refer to yourself as "some responder"?

It was, however, in reply to my post.

You very seldom respond here anyway. And when you do is is basically like trolling. Nit picking is tedious.

In other words, you did refer to me. Given that you don't like my replies, you should be thankful that I'm more of a listener. . But it's always nicer to be agreed with, isn't it?

I did not publish scientific papers....I posted some very short articles that were true but not detailed.

But the first sentence in the article on shells was not true, sorry.

 

[ArtieE]

Another evolutionary 'accident'....or a brilliant design trying to be copied by intelligent minds wanting to mimic the ingenuity of another intelligent mind?

And why would this "another brilliant mind" exist in the first place? Was it designed or does it exist just by accident?

 

[Deeje]

And why would this "another brilliant mind" exist in the first place? Was it designed or does it exist just by accident?

Seems to me I've heard that song before.....

....why do you exist? Did you choose to bring yourself into existence? You know the mechanism, but there is no way you can explain why you got the lucky draw and your fellow 'swimmers' dipped out. You are unique....unless you have an identical twin, there is no one in existence exactly like you.....or me. (some would say 'thank goodness!')

Since we are only familiar with material things in a material realm, things that exist outside of it are a complete mystery to us. What is out there in the far reaches of the universe are a mystery to us too.

Are there extra-terrestrial beings who do not exist in a material form? I believe there are...the Bible calls them angels.

Some are portrayed like this.....

or this...

But the Bible's description is nothing like these. Angels are powerful creatures with abilities we do not possess....like the ability to materialize and dematerialize at will.
They are neither like small children nor effeminate wimps as often portrayed in Christendom's art. They are described more like this.....

An artist's impression of Daniel rescued from the lions by an angel.

Did they really have wings? I don't think they needed wings to transport themselves, but it conveyed flight to early humans who had no concept of such transportation without wings of some kind.

Since angels are not biological creatures, they obviously did not evolve.....but like us, I believe they had the same Creator and are endowed with the same free will.

So in answer to your question.....if you don't know why you exist, then how could anyone possibly know why the Creator exists?

 

[Deeje]

It was, however, in reply to my post.

In other words, you did refer to me.

Not specifically, no. Though I do find you pedantic to a rather ridiculous extreme at times.

Given that you don't like my replies, you should be thankful that I'm more of a listener. . But it's always nicer to be agreed with, isn't it?

It isn't that I don't like your replies so much as the way you deliver them. I never quite know how to take what you write....
You seem like a Jekyll and Hyde to me.

But the first sentence in the article on shells was not true, sorry.

I believe it was. It is like everything in science....one expert "debunks" another expert. There is no real debunking because evolutionary science is not exact (no real provable facts I'm told) and all it ends up being is one scientist's opinion over another. Someone ends up "debunked" simply because he has a different opinion about something for which there is no real evidence anyway. Its ego verses ego as far as I can see.

 

[Sapiens]

Not specifically, no. Though I do find you pedantic to a rather ridiculous extreme at times.



It isn't that I don't like your replies so much as the way you deliver them. I never quite know how to take what you write....
You seem like a Jekyll and Hyde to me.



I believe it was. It is like everything in science....one expert "debunks" another expert. There is no real debunking because evolutionary science is not exact (no real provable facts I'm told) and all it ends up being is one scientist's opinion over another. Someone ends up "debunked" simply because he has a different opinion about something for which there is no real evidence anyway. Its ego verses ego as far as I can see.

Tell me, do you believe that a mollusc's shell holds out the pressure of seawater?

 

[Deeje]

Tell me, do you believe that a mollusc's shell holds out the pressure of seawater?

All mollusks or just the two mentioned in the article?

Apparently, my brothers are not the only ones who think so.....

"Rice University's Chandra Tiwary says in a news release. Mollusk shells, for example, range from the wide, fan-shaped shells of bivalves like clams (pictured above) to the long, spired, screw-shaped shells of predators called terebridae (pictured below). They’re all engineered to protect their innards from harsh conditions and the tremendous pressures at the bottom of the ocean. We know that many are made of nacre (also known as mother of pearl), a strong, resilient matrix of calcium carbonate. But what drove these tough exoskeletons to evolve the shapes that they did?

To investigate, Tiwary and a team of engineers analyzed the microstructures of screw-shaped shells and fan-shaped shells collected from beaches in India. In order to run stress tests, they also created computer simulations and printed simple, 3D-polymer variants of the two shell types: fan shells without their converging ribs and screw shells without their complexities.

As it turns out, the more complex natural shells can sustain loads of nearly twice the weight managed by their simpler spherical and cylindrical synthetic counterparts. Furthermore, the shells redirect the stress so that fractures occur where they’re least likely to hurt the soft creature inside. The shapes evolved in a way that distributes external pressure toward the outer regions of the shell, preventing cracks and safeguarding the core cavity. "

How Seashells Protect Their Soft Insides from Stress

The scientist believes they evolved, but we believe they were designed that way.

 

[Sapiens]

All mollusks or just the two mentioned in the article?

Apparently, my brothers are not the only ones who think so.....

"Rice University's Chandra Tiwary says in a news release. Mollusk shells, for example, range from the wide, fan-shaped shells of bivalves like clams (pictured above) to the long, spired, screw-shaped shells of predators called terebridae (pictured below). They’re all engineered to protect their innards from harsh conditions and the tremendous pressures at the bottom of the ocean. We know that many are made of nacre (also known as mother of pearl), a strong, resilient matrix of calcium carbonate. But what drove these tough exoskeletons to evolve the shapes that they did?

To investigate, Tiwary and a team of engineers analyzed the microstructures of screw-shaped shells and fan-shaped shells collected from beaches in India. In order to run stress tests, they also created computer simulations and printed simple, 3D-polymer variants of the two shell types: fan shells without their converging ribs and screw shells without their complexities.

As it turns out, the more complex natural shells can sustain loads of nearly twice the weight managed by their simpler spherical and cylindrical synthetic counterparts. Furthermore, the shells redirect the stress so that fractures occur where they’re least likely to hurt the soft creature inside. The shapes evolved in a way that distributes external pressure toward the outer regions of the shell, preventing cracks and safeguarding the core cavity. "

How Seashells Protect Their Soft Insides from Stress

The scientist believes they evolved, but we believe they were designed that way.

Please, don't leap ahead and try to argue the point yet. Tell us all, yes or no, does the shell of a mollusc serve to protect it from the "tremendous pressures at the bottom of the ocean"? Feel free, in the future, to specifically include or exclude "special cases" that do not follow your generalized answer, as long as you explain why they are specifically different.

 

[Deeje]

Please, don't leap ahead and try to argue the point yet. Tell us all, yes or no, does the shell of a mollusc serve to protect it from the "tremendous pressures at the bottom of the ocean"? Feel free, in the future, to specifically include or exclude "special cases" that do not follow your generalized answer, as long as you explain why they are specifically different.

Wait....what is this? You said you read the original post, which says.....

Consider: Engineers analyzed two seashell forms—bivalve (clamshell-style) and spiral (screw-shaped).

There were two mentioned......those specific two. Who is leaping ahead? Perhaps a leap backwards would have helped....?

 

[Olinda]

Not specifically, no. Though I do find you pedantic to a rather ridiculous extreme at times.

Well, here's how I see it.

You are presenting Intelligent Design here as fact, and a credible alternative to the ToE. In that case, your belief system should be able to stand up to detailed questioning and you should be able to provide factual or credible answers to questions, however detailed.
Just labelling the questions "nit-picking" or "pedantic to a rather ridiculous extreme" is merely evasion.
To me, it means your beliefs are incomplete or not fully understood.....and so not any kind of truth.

I believe it was. It is like everything in science....one expert "debunks" another expert. There is no real debunking because evolutionary science is not exact (no real provable facts I'm told) and all it ends up being is one scientist's opinion over another. Someone ends up "debunked" simply because he has a different opinion about something for which there is no real evidence anyway. Its ego verses ego as far as I can see.

No, it's about fact, not opinion. Please do your research.

 

[gnostic]

Just labelling the questions "nit-picking" or "pedantic to a rather ridiculous extreme" is merely evasion.

That's what she does best.

 

[metis]

There is no real debunking because evolutionary science is not exact (no real provable facts I'm told) and all it ends up being is one scientist's opinion over another.

Where most "debunking" occurs is when new evidence indicates a previous hypothesis may be at least partially wrong.

Also, actually "debunking" is what makes science much more sensible than having a belief in any deity, because evidence can indicate that X may be right or that X may be wrong. That's not how religion works, however, since it doesn't rely on objectively-derived evidence, therefore almost nothing is falsifiable.

For example, I say that the Cosmic Godzilla made our universe, with his fiery spit-wads becoming stars and his other spit-wads becoming planets and moons, try and prove me wrong? I guarantee that you can't.

Therefore, science has a built-in corrective mechanism that is totally lacking within religion, and this is the reason why theological disagreements abound with no one being able to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that any other religion is wrong.

 

[Sapiens]

Wait....what is this? You said you read the original post, which says.....

Consider: Engineers analyzed two seashell forms—bivalve (clamshell-style) and spiral (screw-shaped).

There were two mentioned......those specific two. Who is leaping ahead? Perhaps a leap backwards would have helped....?

Fine, that covers many mollusks, I am happy to eliminate all but bivalves and spirals from this consideration.

Now, would you be so kind as to answer the question that is on the table with a simple yes or no?

Does the shell of a mollusc serve to protect it from the "tremendous pressures at the bottom of the ocean"? Yes or no?

 

[ArtieE]

Are there extra-terrestrial beings who do not exist in a material form? I believe there are...the Bible calls them angels.

So does The Urantia Book. The Urantia Book on Angels

 

[Deeje]

I love watching David Attenborough documentaries. The photography is breath taking....but I usually have to have the sound turned off.

If you watch this video, (with the sound on) you can hear the idiotic rhetoric of the evolutionist and his vain suggestions about how plants and hummingbirds came together.....in a mutually beneficial relationship.....

If ever there was proof of brilliant design and how utterly pathetic his evolutionary suggestions are....this is one of the best.

 

[metis]

All material things appear to change over time, genes are material things, so it's logical that the genes of hummingbirds have most likely changed over time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not specifically, no. Though I do find you pedantic to a rather ridiculous extreme at times.

It isn't that I don't like your replies so much as the way you deliver them. I never quite know how to take what you write....
You seem like a Jekyll and Hyde to me.

I believe it was. It is like everything in science....one expert "debunks" another expert. There is no real debunking because evolutionary science is not exact (no real provable facts I'm told) and all it ends up being is one scientist's opinion over another. Someone ends up "debunked" simply because he has a different opinion about something for which there is no real evidence anyway. Its ego verses ego as far as I can see.

No. No it isn't. Not at all. You don't actually read anybody's posts, do you? Because it's baffling to me that at this point in the thread that you could still completely misunderstand how science works. When it has been explained so many times.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No. No it isn't. Not at all. You don't actually read anybody's posts, do you? Because it's baffling to me that at this point in the thread that you could still completely misunderstand how science works. When it has been explained so many times.

She just told us in post 4295 that she turns the sound off when watching the Attenborough documentaries so as to avoid hearing anything about evolution while calling evolutionists idiotic and pathetic.

Why would it be any different here? She glosses over the science offered her like somebody daydreaming while reading. Suddenly, you're at the end of the paragraph or page, and you have no recollection of what your eyes scanned while daydreaming.

You're a seasoned poster. I'm sure that you're very familiar with that phenomenon among creationists. You correct a comment and it has zero impact. You read the exact same comment from the same poster a few days or a few weeks later as if nothing happened in between.

Or one asks for your evidence, you provide it, and it is rejected out of hand unread followed once again by the same error as if nothing happened in between. That's faith based thought - the complete lack of interest in evidence in making choices.

 

[SkepticThinker]

She just told us in post 4295 that she turns the sound off when watching the Attenborough documentaries so as to avoid hearing anything about evolution while calling evolutionists idiotic and pathetic.

Why would it be any different here? She glosses over the science offered her like somebody daydreaming while reading. Suddenly, you're at the end of the paragraph or page, and you have no recollection of what your eyes scanned while daydreaming.

You're a seasoned poster. I'm sure that you're very familiar with that phenomenon among creationists. You correct a comment and it has zero impact. You read the exact same comment from the same poster a few days or a few weeks later as if nothing happened in between.

Or one asks for your evidence, you provide it, and it is rejected out of hand unread followed once again by the same error as if nothing happened in between. That's faith based thought - the complete lack of interest in evidence in making choices.

Oh yeah, I've been around the block a few times. The funniest part of this thread is that when I keep returning and writing new posts, Deeje addresses me as though I'm new to the thread (and rather rudely, I might add). Then repeats the same "arguments" she and I have been over and over several times in the thread already. I'm pretty sure she's just ignoring me at this point.

These are not the traits of a person who is interested in learning anything at all.Honestly, this thread just makes me kind of sad.

 

[Sapiens]

I love watching David Attenborough documentaries. The photography is breath taking....but I usually have to have the sound turned off.

If you watch this video, (with the sound on) you can hear the idiotic rhetoric of the evolutionist and his vain suggestions about how plants and hummingbirds came together.....in a mutually beneficial relationship.....

If ever there was proof of brilliant design and how utterly pathetic his evolutionary suggestions are....this is one of the best.

I am waiting for an answer, is it yes or no?