I could care less, just wanna lead you in the right direction in terms of how reality is.

...and reality is not in a box.

Correct, reality is in the real world.

No duh... What did you think I was talking about?

Evolution is an observation of reality. A book is just a book.

[quote]A book is just a book.[/quote]A book that transcends first century human knowledge is just a book? Huh...

It wasn't that [i]knowledge[/i] that created vaccines, flew us to the moon, built houses, created electronics, built cars and planes, grew food etc.

Sorry, I need to put more emphasis on the "first century" part genius.[spoiler]Read the statement before you comment.[/spoiler]

Ah sorry, like the knowledge that the Earth was flat. That got us far.

[quote]...like the knowledge that the Earth was flat.[/quote]I like how you assumed so (when the Bible stated that it was round). Nice try though...

The bible describes it as a circle, not a sphere. Kinda like a pancake

Pretty good observation. If God said "sphere" to humans before geometry was invented, how do you think the humans would have taken it? So of course it is stated that the earth is a "circle," and even after that statement non-believers assumed the earth was flat. What if God told you that the earth was "[i]ADpflenxor[/i]?" You wouldn't understand the statement at all. Are you under the assumption that mankind knew every descriptive term back then? Everyone was already in a state of remaining primitive.

ge·om·e·try jēˈämətrē/Submit noun the branch of mathematics concerned with the properties and relations of points, lines, surfaces, solids, and higher dimensional analogs. a particular system of geometry. plural noun: geometries "non-Euclidean geometries" the shape and relative arrangement of the parts of something. "the geometry of spiders' webs" Pretty sure that has nothing to do with interpreting a sphere. Your argument makes no sense. [quote]If God said "sphere" to humans before geometry was invented, how do you think the humans would have taken it? [/quote] You start with this. So basically people didn't know what shapes are because "geometry" hasn't been invented. Then you say this. [quote]So of course it is stated that the earth is a "circle,"[/quote] If people didn't understand shapes like you said, then telling them it's a circle wouldn't mean anything to them either! That would also just sound like gibberish to them by your own -blam!-ing logic.

Even if you didn't take math class genius, you know what distinctive shapes are. And what's wrong with using geometry?

Geometry has nothing to do with spheres, you would know what a ball is whether or not you knew how to prove that 2 angles are congruent by the transitive property of congruence.

Elementary: Google "the study of shapes."

I guess you missed my definition.

I guess you so heavily depend on the importance of semantics. No matter, it doesn't debunk the original point.

It really doesn't matter that your argument is completely illogical. Either way according to your book, the almighty creator gave us false information about to shape of the planet we live on. It doesn't matter that we weren't according to you "ready for spheres". He's all powerful, yet he couldn't tell us that the Earth was more or less shaped like a ball. Even though that is still false because it isn't perfectly round. It doesn't debunk your "original point" because you had no point in the first place. Your entire argument is based off of what shapes people could understand back in the day. Even though the ancient greeks were thriving hundreds of years before Christ, and they understood round objects perfectly fine.

SSG is full of your name :). Its pointless talking to him, he picked the answer of the 1 person that agrees with him versus the 1,000 people who disagree. Nothing else needs to be said about him being close minded.

Your watch analogy fails to represent evolution in every significant way. 1.) Evolution is not random chance, but a process defined by the law of natural selection. [spoiler]The assemblages favored by nature are preserved and those less fit are discarded. The shaking of the box does not represent this as each piece is haphazardly clashed against every other piece with no pattern whatsoever.[/spoiler] 2.) Your analogy is an example of single-step selection, going from parts to watch in one event. Evolution is cumulative. [spoiler]To more accurately represent evolution you would have to shake your box practically indefinitely, millions of millions of billions of times, each step saving the assemblages that could eventually make up a watch.[/spoiler] 3.) In addition to above, your watch comes into existence in one complete step, making an elegant item that does not resemble your piles of metal at all. Evolution builds on stages. [spoiler]Species grow different gradually through the generations. A species on its gradually shading continuum of change and its offspring will be practically indistinguishable from each other, but the creature and the one at the end of the spectrum will be as if two completely different organisms. Again, you would have to keep the increasingly complex assemblages from the box and you would be able to watch as it becomes more and more watch like. We do not observe complex new creatures in the fossil record, rather we see them changing from a line of gradually dissimilar ancestors.[/spoiler] 4.) You are expecting a watch from watch parts, while evolution has thousands more parts from which it can make anything it wishes. [spoiler]You can't use your analogy as a representation of evolution, but if you added extra parts and kept any kind of trinket or functional piece that came out, while preserving and discarding those appropriate.[/spoiler] Even with all of these changes, it is not a very good analogy for the mechanisms of evolution. But it is far better than your implausible caricature.

[quote] (1) Evolution is not random chance, but a process defined by the law of natural selection.[spoiler]...each piece is haphazardly clashed against every other piece with no pattern whatsoever.[/spoiler][/quote]Hey Atheists, is there something wrong with this statement?[quote](2)...Evolution is cumulative.[/quote]His analogy exhibited that even if the elements to self-create our planet over millions to billions of years existed, the likelihood of them reaching a level of inevitable complexity is a mathematical impossibility. [quote][spoiler]To more accurately represent evolution, you would have to shake your box practically indefinitely, ...saving the assemblages that could eventually make up a watch.[/spoiler][/quote]It still is regarded as impossible since the steps to comply with every minuet and correct, additional part would have to function in an orderly manner, which you stated in your point #1 statement as impossible.[quote](3)...[spoiler]...We do not observe complex new creatures in the fossil record, rather we see them changing from a line of gradually dissimilar ancestors.[/spoiler][/quote]The fossil record shows evidence of only micro-evolution (variations of the same species), but it does not show either branches of at least one species or the high count of transitional fossils for even one species. If evolution does indeed operate over millions to billions of years, is their not supposed to be over at least a million (which there isn't) transitional fossil records [b]per species[/b]? Evolutionists claim that the process of evolution is in fact very slow and very minuet, but all atheistic archeologists can find are only an acclaimed few. Even Darwin doubted as to the origin of these small minuet changes that were acclaimed to be caused by the present environmental hazards he assumed to be affecting their biology, saying, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree...The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection , though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered subversive of the theory" (On the [i]Origin of Species[/i], Chapter 6). The study of abiogenesis (the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.) doesn't even have a conclusion as to the manifestation of organic life from non-organic material, or even a conclusion as to the necessity and development of intelligence (for only one species) and complexity.