Doubting Didymus

I give you one day maximum, before you come crawling straight back!

You know you can't help yourself. None of us can.

Keith

Not everything of God's plans and purposes is incomprehensible to me. I also want to point out that to be consistent with your worldview, you can't really say what an eye, ear, or sexual organ is for! I'm not trying to be mean or insulting, but if nature is devoid of ultimate purpose and ultimate meaning, you can't really know what any natural object or part of an object is for.

Keith

Principia

Keith, you know nothing about my worldview, so don't presume to lecture me when your mind and your posts are swimming in self-contradiction. I say this not to be insulting, or anything.

Principia

Damn, I didn't even last a day.

OK, starting now.

Doubting Didymus

Why not? They are all there to aid the organism in reproducing. There doesn't have to be any real 'purpose' behind the ear, it's just that whenever reproducing objects exist, we would expect those that had some feature that aided their reproduction to become more and more common. I really don't see why you think a preexisting purpose is required for this to happen.

Keith

Are you now admitting that reproduction (or survival) is the purpose behind evolution? If not, how is this relevant?

Keith

Doubting Didymus

No, reproduction is the purpose of adaptations. Evolution itself does not need a purpose in order to account for these adaptations, they are an expected consequence of replication.

Brother Fred

I kinda agree with Keith because to say that the ear is for something implies that there is a teleological purpose behind the ears being.

So it seem incoherent to say that the ear is for something, yet it doesn't have a purpose.

From an atheistic point of view, I would say it's improper to say that the ear is for something, because then it implies a purpose. I would simply say that a ear has a function, viz., that it does something. And this need not imply a purpose. There is no reason why something can't just do a certain act without an end goal.

Keith

False. You've got it backward. Without reproduction you can't get any adaptations at all. Without reproduction the whole process is finished before it has even begun.

Keith

ageofreason2000

To give keith credit I understand why he thinks nature has design, as a none biologist I often see the terms "the genes needed to produce to allow them to survive" or some such terms.

It's the limitations of the english (or possibly all) language that the description of a process is described as a puprose.

I think keith is taking the written word as just that, at the same time denying the contradictions that his holy scriptures give.
But then he would because he believes we are all damned and his purpose is virtous if misguided, he wants nothing less than to save our souls, bless him.

Wake up kieth, the world is not just adam and eve - Buddha, Allah, Ganesh, Ra are just part of the world fictions. What makes your bedtime story right and theirs wrong?

Evolution is not a belief as such its just all the logical evidence supports it. It could be wrong, and maybe your the person to prove it so. But the argument youve given so far makes you look like nothing less nor more than a pillock.