what is more realistic?

[pie4muh]

which of the following is more probable and realistic

1. all the little different pieces of my watch were put into a bag then shook for 6 billion years and at the end of the 6 billion years it all fit in togather and told the correct time....(i think we can all can conclude this would be impossible)

or

2. a watch maker. somebody who knew what they were doing built the watch....



discuss

 

[Angelmax]

Don't post this idiotic recycled crap.

Nobody is suggesting that evolution by natural selection occurred the way you have described it, changes occur gradually over time rather than all at once.

Besides, if complexity is proof of a designer, in turn something more complex must have designed the designer.

 

[Recidivism]

which of the following is more probable and realistic

Which of the following is more probable and realistic

The hole in my back yard with the help from other elements turned into a beautiful pond

A Magic man made it fill with water

You are using a horrible analogy.

Besides, if complexity is proof of a designer, in turn something more complex must have designed the designer.

I assume there are exceptions. The OP's brain is not complex or even solid, yet he can create a thread on a forum.




Lets dig this apart

Here is what u meant

1. all the little different pieces of my watch were put into a bag then shook for 6 billion years and at the end of the 6 billion years it all fit in togather and told the correct time....(i think we can all can conclude this would be impossible)

A bunch of elements worked together and made a workable item

or

2. a watch maker. somebody who knew what they were doing built the watch....

A magic man did it

 

[pie4muh]

Don't post this idiotic recycled crap.

Nobody is suggesting that evolution by natural selection occurred the way you have described it, changes occur gradually over time rather than all at once.

Besides, if complexity is proof of a designer, in turn something more complex must have designed the designer.

i never said it all happend at once. all pieces would have slid into place over the 6 billion years

neither one of you have answered the questions...so why dont you?

 

[Deacon Frost]

http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=828857

Why I'm replying to your post, I don't know. I can't report the thread for a few minutes, but I figured I'd post this. I know you don't know how to read and all because you're an idiot... but I can try.

Not only is your 'which is more realistic' statement invalid because of how irrelevant it is, but I know for a fact you know nothing about how the universe operates. Number 2 is more plausible in this circumstance, but number 1 is more plausible (to a very small degree) when in relevance to the universe.


Why do you even post in SFA? Why aren't you forum banned yet? We all know you're an idiot who trolls with his stupid, mindless dribble. You shouldn't be here.

 

[pie4muh]

^ why is it that 2 is more plausible here? but 1 is more plausible with the universe?

 

[aznguy94]

This thread is completely stupid; the "analogy" he gives actually has nothing to do with neither evolution nor natural selection. That whole "watchmaker" bullshit has been discredited a numerous amount of times.

 

[Deacon Frost]

^ why is it that 2 is more plausible here? but 1 is more plausible with the universe?

Because the universe is not a watch. It is not a simple device that operates with cogs and other metal components.

While I don't necessarily agree fully with the big bang, the universe being made is improbable, moreso than number 1.

 

[pie4muh]

so let me get this strait... its not number 2 because its MORE complicated?

 

[Recidivism]

i never said it all happend at once. all pieces would have slid into place over the 6 billion years

neither one of you have answered the questions...so why dont you?

Answer my questions.


To answer yours
It is obvious 2) is more plausible your stupid if you think that is an analogy to creationism.

That is like saying which of these is water

Aquafina answering this will mean you believe in creationism
MT Dew Answering this means a magic man in the sky does everything.

You asked us to pick between Creationism and a retarded thing that should not even be classified as an option or possibility.


My analogy below is less biased
Which of these is more Plausible
1) Natural Selection is true
2) Your mother is hitler

 

[Deacon Frost]

so let me get this strait... its not number 2 because its MORE complicated?

It's not number 2 because it's less FEASIBLE. See, this is why I don't like talking to you. You have no basic understanding of logic. =/.

 

[pie4muh]

Answer my questions.


To answer yours
It is obvious 2) is more plausible your stupid if you think that is an analogy to creationism.

That is like saying which of these is water

Aquafina answering this will mean you believe in creationism
MT Dew Answering this means a magic man in the sky does everything.

a a perfect analogy.... its completely ludicrous with a watch so with something as complexe as the universe its even more ludicrous

your an idiot if you don't think its an analogy to creationism

 

[Deacon Frost]

a a perfect analogy.... its completely ludicrous with a watch so with something as complexe as the universe its even more ludicrous

your an idiot if you don't think its an analogy to creationism

Ok, that's enough. You biased, bigoted asshole. Get the fuck out of SFA, and don't come back. We don't need your idiocy plaguing these forums where enough idiots troll as is.

 

[Recidivism]

your an idiot if you don't think its an analogy to creationism

Ok its a barely passable analogy for Creationism I guess I will give you that.

But it is not an analogy for natural selection.

 

[Jimmy]

a a perfect analogy.... its completely ludicrous with a watch so with something as complexe as the universe its even more ludicrous

your an idiot if you don't think its an analogy to creationism

And with something as infinately complex as god, impossible.

You correctly assert that complexity doesn't just appear, yet then say that something as infinitely complex as god just happened. Where did god come from?

 

[Deacon Frost]

Ok its a barely passable analogy for Creationism I guess I will give you that.

But it is not an analogy for natural selection.

Your words are too large for the idiot to understand. And no, it's not. It's a perfect example of creation in a sense that does not involve the universe.

 

[pie4muh]

^nor was it supposed to be...

and deacon if you dont like me get off my thread you pathetic idiot.you come on here and flame me because i have different views then you..you could have simply used the logic i dont have to explain it out. but no you flame me instead

gtfo

 

[Deacon Frost]

^nor was it supposed to be...

and deacon if you dont like me get off my thread you pathetic idiot.you come on here and flame me because i have different views then you..you could have simply used the logic i dont have to explain it out. but no you flame me instead

gtfo

I've attempted to explain things to you, and you simply ignore the logic and go right back to your moronic beliefs.

I don't care if you have different views than me. It doesn't affect me that you're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. It does affect me, however, when idiots like you come on here, ignore logic, and attempt to pass their retarded ass thoughts off as valid. It's for intelligent discussion only, which you've never been capable of.

 

[Recidivism]

Because you are a troll.

You used no logic, why should we give you logic.

 

[pie4muh]

And with something as infinately complex as god, impossible.

You correctly assert that complexity doesn't just appear, yet then say that something as infinitely complex as god just happened. Where did god come from?

we live in the universe in which there is a cause and a effect.
god created this universe we llive in.thus he is outside of the universe and outside cause and effect....

god has always been and will be.he lives outside of this thing we call time