Who has no credibility now?

[krank]

Originally Posted by gomer_tree

It's funny. Atheists will argue how illogical an unreasoned religious people can be, and then I read stuff like this.

It's like saying that if I walk halfway to a wall, and then go halfway again, and then halfway again, etc. there are an infinite number of halves. Since I could never walk an infinite number of halves in my lifetime, I will never reach the wall.

It's nice logic, but it's simply wrong.

Shaking the parts of a watch will NEVER make a watch, if someone is evaluating this with any modicum of reason. It's not simply a matter of "all the parts landing in the right spot." It's about actual different actions that need to take place, such as screwing in the tiny screws, snapping on gears, whatever. There's this theoretical possibility that is simply, in practicality, a zero probablility.

Yet, you guys of the enlightened philosophical and scientific thought will argue basicall any point - no matter how ludicrous - to make yourselves happy.

If you purposely walk half way each time you will never get to the end. HTH

[krank]

Originally Posted by Paul Brand

Since we were dishing out one-liners, I thought what I wrote was appropriate. I'm not going to expend the energy of putting in countless hours answering your command. I don't ask you to prove that evolution alone is responible for the development of the human species. You can't prove it. No one has.

There is more evidence to suggest a process of evolution than any other theory.

[The Drunken Actuary]

Originally Posted by gomer_tree

It's funny. Atheists will argue how illogical an unreasoned religious people can be, and then I read stuff like this.

It's like saying that if I walk halfway to a wall, and then go halfway again, and then halfway again, etc. there are an infinite number of halves. Since I could never walk an infinite number of halves in my lifetime, I will never reach the wall.

It's nice logic, but it's simply wrong.

Shaking the parts of a watch will NEVER make a watch, if someone is evaluating this with any modicum of reason. It's not simply a matter of "all the parts landing in the right spot." It's about actual different actions that need to take place, such as screwing in the tiny screws, snapping on gears, whatever. There's this theoretical possibility that is simply, in practicality, a zero probablility.

Yet, you guys of the enlightened philosophical and scientific thought will argue basicall any point - no matter how ludicrous - to make yourselves happy.

gomer, it's a bad analagy. Finding faults with the analagy is not the same as finding faults with the real thing.

[Griffin 5]

Originally Posted by krank

If you purposely walk half way each time you will never get to the end. HTH

Is that because you believe he can't take an infinite number of steps, or is it because you believe that the sum of (1/2)^i for i = 1 to infinity is not equal to 1?

[Griffin 5]

Originally Posted by Sir Post-a-Lot

Finding faults with the analagy is not the same as finding faults with the real thing.

You've been in this forum for how long?

[krank]

Originally Posted by Griffin 5

Is that because you believe he can't take an infinite number of steps, or is it because you believe that the sum of (1/2)^i for i = 1 to infinity is not equal to 1?

yes

[Paul Brand]

Originally Posted by krank

There is more evidence to suggest a process of evolution than any other theory.

Not quite. More evolutionary scientists have interpreted the evidence in favor of evolution more than any other theory. But, I'm not convinced that the number of evolutionary supporters gives sufficient credibility to make evolution provably true.

[krank]

Originally Posted by Paul Brand

Not quite. More evolutionary scientists have interpreted the evidence in favor of evolution more than any other theory. But, I'm not convinced that the number of evolutionary supporters gives sufficient credibility to make evolution provably true.

If your looking for a 100% understanding then I agree. If you are looking for something in the order of 80-90% then I disagree.

[Paul Brand]

Originally Posted by Sir Post-a-Lot

Finding faults with the analagy is not the same as finding faults with the real thing.

I agree.

[krank]

Originally Posted by gomer_tree

Um...

The point is that you can measure an infinite number of halves, which leads to one theoretical conclusion, while the reality is that you do not need to walk it in such a way, thus disposing of a logical conclusion.

It may not be quite the same as the watch thing, but the point is the same. You can argue all you want about the logical probability that shaking the parts can make a watch, but any moron knows it really cannot happen.

you should edit your original post then that's not what you said at all.