Still no arguments on here. No courtesy. Nothing. Just a poor unfortunate person completely out of touch with reality and clinging to beliefs that cannot be supported and, as such, are not science.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based
- Thread starter Patriottechsan
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Creationists always make this claim, but they never have been able to show that the theory of evolution in any way exceeds some limit. Yes, we know that if changes in environment occur to rapidly or even extremely over a longer period of time that species will go extinct, but you have not been able to show this limit that you claim exists.
Hardly. In fact DNA makes evolution a slam dunk if you understand it. For example creationists have no explanation for the observed patterns of ERV's.
And the "limits" that Darwin saw were often answered by Darwin himself. Creationists love to lie by quoting out of context. I would not try it here.
Sorry, I do not tend to answer questions from known lying sources. Can you find a valid source for your question?
By the way, not knowing the answer does not refute evolution. Does that fact that you can't explain how God did anything at all in your mythological beliefs refute it? You are proposing an argument from ignorance here. That is a logical fallacy and leads to a God of the Gaps.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You would think that he would at least want to learn the basics, the scientific method, the nature of evidence, and as shown by this last post the knowledge of logical fallacies. It is another multi level fail that refutes itself.
Darwin was a good scientist and in proposing and supporting the theory, he produced possibilities of finding evidence he did not have that would refute that theory.
Like you, I notice that this is often repeated, but that this admonition never imparts recognition of the fact that none of the things that Darwin postulated as damaging to the theory have ever been found.
He is anthropomorphizing DNA as some sort of surrogate that chooses and designs for a designer. He is a creationist that does not understand genetics, DNA, chemistry or anything he is against, for that matter.
Those pesky ERV's. What is a creationist to do. He probably has a link to some more pseudoscience that does not provide an actual answer, but he is behind it all the way, just the same.
Too late. The bulk of his arguments are resting on ore from the quote mine.
It is just an opinion piece expressing awe at what the author cannot conceive and is being used to justify the failed concept of irreducible complexity.
I do not think he understands the limitations of his arguments. Unlike Darwin, he never bothered to consider that his arguments might have limitations.
An inquiring person would, but he is not inquiring. He is not here to learn anything or be challenged. He is here to spread the message of his special knowledge. He is here to insult people that do not believe as he does.
If he learned about logical fallacies and how reliant he is on them, he would have to stop posting for lack of anything to post.
I read the article he linked and was in no way surprised by its contents. It is not an article providing some evidence for a creator, but one that just assumes a creator and attributes actions to that creator without benefit of any evidence to lead to that conclusion. Typical creationist pseudoscience that does not offer an explanation any better than "God of the gaps".
I can see how it would be immediately accepted by those that already accept, but rational people will find it falls short of doing more than proselytizing in a lab coat.
Irreducible complexity is a term that was coined by Michale Behe. It describes a complex system made up of smaller parts and that system cannot have any function if it is reduced--parts are removed. The claim is that there is no viable mechanism for these complex systems to have arisen by steps over time and that they must have been injected into living systems, complete and fully functional.
This argument is an hypothesis and no known experiment or observation offers support for it. The fact is, it is not even a scientific hypothesis, since it relies on the existence of a being that, itself, has not been established to exist. It is another attempt at a "God of the gaps" argument that has failed miserably, even to the point of Behe himself acknowledging that it has never been observed experimentally and he has no proof of concept.
The classic example has become the mousetrap. Its multiple parts required in order to function in trapping mice. That it could not fulfill that role if even one part were removed. As a metaphor, this assumes a goal, and for the human creation of a mousetrap, that is true, but following the definition of irreducible complexity, that is not the case. Removing a few parts has been demonstrated to render the mousetrap as a fully functional tie clip--a reduced system with a function.
In order to accept an hypothesis of irreducible complexity, one would have to establish that every reduced iteration of a complex has no function. This is not a practical possibility, as producing even a fraction of the possible outcomes for many of the systems in question is impossible and if you could do it, you would still never know if you had produced them all. In addition, some of these would undoubtedly have a function--either limited in the context of the original or some function that is different, but potentially useful.
It is much the same problem in declaring something immortal. Anything substantially longer-lived than the observer is functionally immortal by comparison, but that does not mean it is actually immortal. All that something has to do is outlive the observer. That is not a test sufficient to establish immortality and like irreducible complexity is a gap argument.
Eternulax The Immortal, dead at the age of 26.
This argument is an hypothesis and no known experiment or observation offers support for it. The fact is, it is not even a scientific hypothesis, since it relies on the existence of a being that, itself, has not been established to exist. It is another attempt at a "God of the gaps" argument that has failed miserably, even to the point of Behe himself acknowledging that it has never been observed experimentally and he has no proof of concept.
The classic example has become the mousetrap. Its multiple parts required in order to function in trapping mice. That it could not fulfill that role if even one part were removed. As a metaphor, this assumes a goal, and for the human creation of a mousetrap, that is true, but following the definition of irreducible complexity, that is not the case. Removing a few parts has been demonstrated to render the mousetrap as a fully functional tie clip--a reduced system with a function.
In order to accept an hypothesis of irreducible complexity, one would have to establish that every reduced iteration of a complex has no function. This is not a practical possibility, as producing even a fraction of the possible outcomes for many of the systems in question is impossible and if you could do it, you would still never know if you had produced them all. In addition, some of these would undoubtedly have a function--either limited in the context of the original or some function that is different, but potentially useful.
It is much the same problem in declaring something immortal. Anything substantially longer-lived than the observer is functionally immortal by comparison, but that does not mean it is actually immortal. All that something has to do is outlive the observer. That is not a test sufficient to establish immortality and like irreducible complexity is a gap argument.
Eternulax The Immortal, dead at the age of 26.
Last edited:
Patriottechsan
Member
You didn't read the article. So typical. The problems it discusses that evolutionary methods can't handle you refuse to even read or learn or understand.
No Darwin didn't explain the answers in his book. Have you even read it? I have. I was really surprised at his own doubt expressed in the book & not just chapter 6 which deals with problems of his theory.
What he expressed so often was that his hope was future discoveries would prove him correct.
The opposite has occurred. Not only has the simple cell he believed in & used so much in his theory. It's keeps proving to be more & more complex all the time. Actually had Darwin known what we know today about the complexity of the simplest cell today. His theory wouldn't have gotten off the ground. Which is why it's forced evolutionist to commit so many proven frauds. They can't use what they don't have as real evidence. Small changes or adaptations are built into the original DNA/RNA code. That helps them survive. Yet they still always stay within their kinds.
Look at all the genetic research done with crops, animal breeds etc. They breed for certain characteristics. Yet at no time does wheat, corn roses or dogs & cats etc ever become a non wheat, corn, rose, dog or cat. You'll never get a Dat or Cog ( Dog & cat or Cat & dog). They aren't of same kind. There is a line genetics doesn't allow them to cross.
If you'd actually read that article it shows you the problem that Darwin refers to as what would destroy his theory. It can't be developed by slow incremental steps. Read it to find out what it is.
Oh sure evolution will just say it overcame it because it exist. That's not science. It can't give the steps in order or describe each step. It's all smoke & mirrors.
An ID or say Engineer knows the problems & goes about trying to solve it. They know the problem & the end game. They try & fail over & over til they get it correct. Natural Selection has no functioning thinking reasoning brain. So it doesn't know the problem, esp so if the species is alive & doing well it won't recognize a problem that needs to be solved. Much less even know the end game solution. So each step along the way that doesn't solve the problem completely, as it can't because it takes all the steps to complete to make it functional. All during this time those trials leave the species vulnerable to death since problem isn't solved & since it has no brain. It doesn't know what to keep or discard all along the way.
You guys problem is you can't critically analyze. You've had that taught out of you. I'm so glad I haven't.
It's similar to symbiotic relationships. How did they know to find one another from all over this earth & evolve next to each other & at exactly the same time. Mathematically the odds are beyond possible. Which is 10 to 50th power.
Actually the quote from long ago at time of Darwin a man, sorry forgot who, said Darwin made it possible to be an academic atheist. That's the key here. It's not about the bad science. Which evolution truly is. It's about Atheism. Plus promoting it on the youth.
ID doesn't promote who the ID is just acknowledges the obvious. There has to be one. Many atheist even admit it directly or indirectly.
Click who discovered DNA was quoted saying. He has to remind himself everyday that what he's looking at wasn't designed it just appears it was designed. See what's tripping him up. It not only appears designed. Here is the key ITS FUNCTIONAL DESIGN!" That's what he can't run from. See a person could use bldg blocks & design lots of things that appear designed. In actuality it was ID. But the key difference. The building blocks don't function as designed. What is seen all through creation is FUNCTIONAL DESIGN!
That's an inescapable truth!
Every Functional Design you see in present or past. Any Functional Design has Always required an ID Intelligent Designer. You can be like Click & keep ignoring the obvious & even worse blaming others for what's so obvious.
Regardless it won't change the Reality of its Truth!
No Darwin didn't explain the answers in his book. Have you even read it? I have. I was really surprised at his own doubt expressed in the book & not just chapter 6 which deals with problems of his theory.
What he expressed so often was that his hope was future discoveries would prove him correct.
The opposite has occurred. Not only has the simple cell he believed in & used so much in his theory. It's keeps proving to be more & more complex all the time. Actually had Darwin known what we know today about the complexity of the simplest cell today. His theory wouldn't have gotten off the ground. Which is why it's forced evolutionist to commit so many proven frauds. They can't use what they don't have as real evidence. Small changes or adaptations are built into the original DNA/RNA code. That helps them survive. Yet they still always stay within their kinds.
Look at all the genetic research done with crops, animal breeds etc. They breed for certain characteristics. Yet at no time does wheat, corn roses or dogs & cats etc ever become a non wheat, corn, rose, dog or cat. You'll never get a Dat or Cog ( Dog & cat or Cat & dog). They aren't of same kind. There is a line genetics doesn't allow them to cross.
If you'd actually read that article it shows you the problem that Darwin refers to as what would destroy his theory. It can't be developed by slow incremental steps. Read it to find out what it is.
Oh sure evolution will just say it overcame it because it exist. That's not science. It can't give the steps in order or describe each step. It's all smoke & mirrors.
An ID or say Engineer knows the problems & goes about trying to solve it. They know the problem & the end game. They try & fail over & over til they get it correct. Natural Selection has no functioning thinking reasoning brain. So it doesn't know the problem, esp so if the species is alive & doing well it won't recognize a problem that needs to be solved. Much less even know the end game solution. So each step along the way that doesn't solve the problem completely, as it can't because it takes all the steps to complete to make it functional. All during this time those trials leave the species vulnerable to death since problem isn't solved & since it has no brain. It doesn't know what to keep or discard all along the way.
You guys problem is you can't critically analyze. You've had that taught out of you. I'm so glad I haven't.
It's similar to symbiotic relationships. How did they know to find one another from all over this earth & evolve next to each other & at exactly the same time. Mathematically the odds are beyond possible. Which is 10 to 50th power.
Actually the quote from long ago at time of Darwin a man, sorry forgot who, said Darwin made it possible to be an academic atheist. That's the key here. It's not about the bad science. Which evolution truly is. It's about Atheism. Plus promoting it on the youth.
ID doesn't promote who the ID is just acknowledges the obvious. There has to be one. Many atheist even admit it directly or indirectly.
Click who discovered DNA was quoted saying. He has to remind himself everyday that what he's looking at wasn't designed it just appears it was designed. See what's tripping him up. It not only appears designed. Here is the key ITS FUNCTIONAL DESIGN!" That's what he can't run from. See a person could use bldg blocks & design lots of things that appear designed. In actuality it was ID. But the key difference. The building blocks don't function as designed. What is seen all through creation is FUNCTIONAL DESIGN!
That's an inescapable truth!
Every Functional Design you see in present or past. Any Functional Design has Always required an ID Intelligent Designer. You can be like Click & keep ignoring the obvious & even worse blaming others for what's so obvious.
Regardless it won't change the Reality of its Truth!
I did read the article and provided a brief, but fair and accurate summation of that article.
You will note that I am doing the courtesy of responding directly to you and not just posting into space. Is this what your years teaching PE taught you about interpersonal communication? Or is this just a symptom of the standard creationist arrogance and denial?
A watch laying on a beach is recognized as intelligently designed, because there is evidence of that design and the work making the watch. However, we also do not confuse the watch with the water or the sand, because we recognize them as having no evidence to show that they were designed. Wishful thinking, blinders and repetition of dogma will not change that or become the missing evidence.
In the future, please direct your posts to the person you are addressing so that they can have the opportunity to be a part of the discussion and not just be another victim in your intellectual mass shooting.
Patriottechsan
Member
BTW I don't like use of the mouse trap. Why? It's too simple. I like DNA/RNA because if we don't have it running each cell there is NO LIFE! It's a perfect example of complex FUNCTIONAL DESIGN.
I just gave you my example with building blocks. Yes they can be built to be very complex. I've seen them built to look like tractors etc. Now it took ID to build that design. Yet due to it not being Functional its worthless unless you just admire the workmanship.
A real tractor actually FUNCTIONS like a tractor. That's what you see in creation & esp DNA/RNA.
All you excuses can't deny that. All FUNCTIONAL DESIGNS require ID.
Except what Evolution says it did. That's just words. What I see & experience screams the exact opposite. Once you prove in the real world an ID can occur by the ID. designing a functional design on its own w/o any ID involved Ill listen. Since that's never happened & can't. I figure I'll be waiting a long time.
I just gave you my example with building blocks. Yes they can be built to be very complex. I've seen them built to look like tractors etc. Now it took ID to build that design. Yet due to it not being Functional its worthless unless you just admire the workmanship.
A real tractor actually FUNCTIONS like a tractor. That's what you see in creation & esp DNA/RNA.
All you excuses can't deny that. All FUNCTIONAL DESIGNS require ID.
Except what Evolution says it did. That's just words. What I see & experience screams the exact opposite. Once you prove in the real world an ID can occur by the ID. designing a functional design on its own w/o any ID involved Ill listen. Since that's never happened & can't. I figure I'll be waiting a long time.
Patriottechsan
Member
Dan explain to me using your Intelligence how a. Functional watch could make itself by using evolutionary methods.
Or computer program. etc
Realizing I'm giving you an advantage by letting you use your Intelligence. Evolution itself is pure naturalism & actually has no brain, no God. no supernatural.
Also remember until finished its not working so Nat Sel is out trying to kill the imperfected " creation"
This is your mission impossible. Tape burns up after you've read it.
Or computer program. etc
Realizing I'm giving you an advantage by letting you use your Intelligence. Evolution itself is pure naturalism & actually has no brain, no God. no supernatural.
Also remember until finished its not working so Nat Sel is out trying to kill the imperfected " creation"
This is your mission impossible. Tape burns up after you've read it.
A guy used that same argument with examples of robot penguins. He also failed to see how a single fact renders the entire exercise flawed before you started typing it:
A watch is a mechanical device. Evolution doesn't apply to it. Your argument is plain dumb and naive.
No thanks.
It's from a creationist web site. Find something from a mutually acceptable science education site that makes the same argument based on the same evidence. There is nothing that is true that is known only to Christians, so if something is accurately reported on a creation apologetics site, it will be reported elsewhere on sites with no religious agenda. Link to those. If no such site exists, then there is no merit to the apologetics.
Plus, a lot of us are uninterested in orphan links - orphan because it is not offered in support of an argument, but in lieu of one. I've lost count of how many times in the past I read and responded to such a link to the one posting it only to discover that whoever left the orphan link didn't actually read it himself, or read it but misunderstood it and now can't rebut the rebuttal to the piece, or the paragraphs I responded to on RF weren't the part of interest to the link poster.
Make your own arguments, and support them with links if necessary.
Until the article becomes creationist apologetics.
It's already been explained to you. Natural selection working on biological populations experiencing genetic variation over generations.
Furthermore, as I told you earlier, you are responsible for your education, not Religious Forums members. Enroll in a university course on biological evolution, or go down to your local bookseller and purchase any of the fine books written on the subject for lay consumption.
I have a 31 page document on evolution with an emphasis on human evolution that I produced for a local presentation that I would be happy to share with you, but I'd need an email address, and you'd have to study it yourself. Others could field the odd question or two for you, but nobody here is going to give you a comprehensive education, and nothing less would answer your questions.
The paper begins with Darwin, a definition of evolution, and the types of evidence supporting the theory, and ends with human evolution from ancestral apes..
Hominan skull evolution
Let’s discuss the evolution of the skull in the hominan line. We’ve already considered the change in the location of the foramen magnum associated with bipedalism, and alluded to changes in dentition associated with the change in diet, which included smaller teeth, changes in the cusps of the molars, less enamel, and more vertically angled teeth rather than the forward angled teeth of leaf, fruit, young shoot, and nut eating arboreal apes.
Associated with these changes were those that reflected the reduced facial musculature that accompanied the acquisition of an omnivorous diet. We lost the muzzle of our forebears and acquired flatter faces, as well as a chin, and a smaller, more parabolic mandible, or lower jaw.
The sagittal crest, a bony prominence at the top of the skull like a mohawk which anchored the origins of powerful jaw muscules, disappeared. The temporal fossae - the depressions on the side of the upper skull above the ears - become shallower as jaw musculature diminishes. The shape and size of the zygoma. or cheekbones diminishes as does the size of the hole in them through which jaw muscles pass on the way to the mandible. The nuchal ridge in the lower back of the skull, the occipital region, to which neck musculature attaches also becomes smaller.
Other changes include the larger calvarium, or skullcap, to accommodate the bigger brains, a higher forehead, changes in the size of the ear holes, the nose becomes pointier, and the brow ridges gradually disappear.
Other skeletal differences
Also, modern man is taller than his ancestors, the shoulder and clavicle (or collar bone) change in size, shape, orientation, and mobility to reflect the absence of any need to swing through branches, his arms are relatively shorter compared to his overall size and hang closer to his side, his thumb is relatively longer, his palms smaller with a broken palmar crease, his chest is less robust and more slender, his legs relatively longer and thinner with the knees oriented forward and closer together, and the pelvis oriented differently to reflect bipedalism, as well as having a larger central opening to reflect a need to birth bigger-brained babies.
The feet change from flat to arched, and the foot goes from being a lower hand with a divergent hallux - or big toe - capable of grasping, to the modern human foot, where the toes are used for maintaining balance instead and are rather inarticulate. They can’t be used for much else.
Did you learn anything from that? How do you think I learned it? How do you think my sources came by that information?
Would you like to know what drove human evolution - why man descended from the trees, stood upright, lost much body hair, grew bigger brains, and began persistence hunting meat? It's a fascinating story. It begins with North and South America meeting, which led to the end of an ocean current running between them and the subsequent change in climate and the loss of jungle habitats in northern Africa that then became relatively treeless savannas forcing some apes to find a new way to make a living other than swinging through the branches eating leaves and nuts.
There's a fundamental difference between people like @Subduction Zone and @Dan From Smithville , and creationists. Those guys love science, and it shows in their treatment of it.
Typically, people like them have been fascinated by science since childhood. They asked for chemistry sets and Radio Shack or Heath kits as kids.
They read about science in their Highlights magazines.
They enjoyed biology, chemistry and physics in high school, and needed no prompting to study and learn it.
The took science electives in college.
They probably majored in one or two of the sciences,and I believe that both chose a career in science.
If old enough, they were glued to the TV during the Apollo missions and have been following the space program ever since.
They subscribed to the likes of Scientific American and Sky & Telescope.
Many such people own or owned telescopes and became amateur astronomers and star gazers.
And they continued their science education after graduating by reading pop science books like those I mentioned that are sold at bookstores such as Barnes & Noble or B. Dalton, books written for lay consumption by people like Paul Davies, John Gribben, Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg, and Ilya Prigogine.
They have watched uncounted science documentaries from NatGeo and Nova, watched every episode of both Sagan's and Tyson's Cosmos series, and still watch these types of shows today. They have been fascinated by science for decades, and have extensive educations in it.
Creationists have no interest in or use for science except to try to use bits of it against itself, and that shows as well. When presented with information as I just did for you, they typically don't even look at it, much less try to assimilate it.
The theory has been confirmed. It's settled science. Creationists have no ammunition.:
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nice to see that you read my post. It was from a lying source. When you rely on idiots and liars you tend to look like one too. And please, if your claim is valid you can find a valid source that agrees with you. To even work at the sites that you linked workers have to swear not to follow the scientific method. That makes their claims worthless in a scientific debate.
Yes I read it and and yes he did. There were of course some unanswered questions but there are always unanswered questions in the sciences. Your argument from ignorance fails again.
Actually that was specifically in regards to the fossil record and even in his lifetime the added fossils confirmed his theory.
Once more an argument from ignorance. Yes, life is more complex than was thought at that time, but you appear to be at least 50 years behind the time on abiogenesis. Many of the problems of that area of science have been solved. And can you tone down the lies a bit. There have been far fewer frauds in evolution than there have been in Christianity. By your faulty standards Christianity has been disproven ten times over.
LOL!! Oh my, the utter lack of a clue, it burns!! You really do not understand what you are arguing against at all. There is no "change of kind" in evolution. That is a creationist strawman.
No need. Irreducible complexity has been refuted countless times already. That you have to rely on a lying source should be a clue.
Nope, that is not what is claimed. Try again.
If you understood biology you would see that at best "ID" could only stand for "Incompetent Designer". Why are you claiming that your God is incompetent?
Nope, all odds arguments from creationists fail. They base them upon false premises. Once the premise is shown to be false the argument collapses.
Dawkins made that claim. And yes, as the saying goes "The Truth Shall Set You Free". Realizing that Genesis is a myth frees one from the bad morals of the Bible.
Oh we understand the dishonest ID argument far better than you ever will.
An appearance of design does not mean that an object is designed. Snowflakes look designed. In fact almost all crystals look "designed" yet we know that they form naturally. We also understand how life evolves. Would you like to learn? Or are you merely going to repeat the lies that have been fed to you?
Well, this is a start, but you can hit the reply button to do it right.
I cannot explain that to you, since it is a nonsense question with no evidence to guide it. Anything I posted would be pure wild speculation. There is no scientific theory or explanation that comes close to stating that some living thing created itself.
You are once again mixing the origin of something with the evolution of something and doing a ham-handed job of it. Sorry, I cannot help you refine your straw man argument.
The same.
You provide the evidence supporting your claims. How about that? Not some circular creationist arguments that assumes its own conclusions.
These are loaded, nonsense questions about the products of human intelligence. The watchmaker argument died long before you and I first felt the sun on our faces, but like any creationist, you cling to it as if it were a fact.
I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here.
We know that people have intelligence. Is this evidence that there is a greater intelligence. No.
Are you conceding that the claim of your OP is wrong? What do you mean here?
You are not letting me use anything. I would naturally use my intelligence when confronted with the fallacious, irrational and unsupported.
It is difficult to understand what you write, but natural selection is just a name applied to the environmental conditions that favor some genetic pattern over another. It is not some force that is out killing off members of a population or at random.
Within a population there exists genetic variation that is expressed as phenotypes or traits. Expression of some of these traits are detrimental, even lethal, while others are beneficial. Most of the genome is composed of genetic elements that do not express and are neutral. Where the traits exist in an environment that favors a population possessing the traits, there is a tendency for increased overall reproductive success within that population. This does not mean that the mother population without the variation is being targeted for death. That population may survive and flourish if the conditions it is under have not changed. Remember, change in the environment does not have to be universal for the entire range of a species in order for speciation to occur. There is no claim in the theory that the ancestral population has to go extinct in order for the derived population to survive. There is no limit on the derivations that may find success in a success in new or changed environments either, other than those already existing as limitations like physical and chemical laws.
I have no idea what you mean. I have no mission. The mission is entirely yours and is not going to burn up, but remain here as long as this site remains in existence. Perhaps even longer, considering that the internet seems never to let go of its information and, for some, it can be embarrassingly conservative about retaining it and making it available at some future date.This is your mission impossible. Tape burns up after you've read it.
Remember, the Mission here is yours. You are the one making the claims and it is your responsibility to provide the arguments and the evidence that your claims should be recognized and accepted. Many of the things that you have asserted have already been refuted, several times.
There is no evidence that the theory of evolution is dependent on cosmic origins or the origin of life, and no specific version is included as an assumption of the theory. Mixing these is not a valid consideration.
Quote mines are intellectually dishonest.
Acceptance of science is not the same as religious belief and is not faith-based.
Logical fallacies do not replace evidence.
Insulting your audience, being discourteous and dishonest alienate your audience. Not speaking to us directly has placed an additional burden on you that has resulted in ridicule that you could have avoided, but were long in choosing not to. You still seem reluctant to let go of it.
Your degrees and any honors you claim, whether real or imagined, do not support your assertions. I have degrees too. So do many of the other posters here. Some do not, and have shown greater management of logic, reason and evidence than you have.
I cannot wait to see the product of your Mission. Do not make me wait too long. I have waited for some time as it is already.
There have been so many flaws in that very, very old argument. It is hard to imagine that it keeps coming back as if whichever poster that is currently fielding it just devised it independently and no one has ever conceived it.
I cannot believe that creationists, who have no clue about science, philosophy, logic, reason, or arguments, can believe that the people they respond to are illiterate, idiots that have never cracked a book. But they do.
All I have seen are assertions, verification of the existence of his preconceived notions, logical fallacies, attempts to unburden himself of his burden of proof and insults.
So far, it reads as a typical creationist attempt. The only novelty is the near complete use of every existing and refuted assertion ever lodged by a creationist all put into the single package of this thread.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Argument from ignorance fallacy. Try again.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Dan explain to me using your Intelligence how a. Functional watch could make itself by using evolutionary methods.
Or computer program. etc
Realizing I'm giving you an advantage by letting you use your Intelligence. Evolution itself is pure naturalism & actually has no brain, no God. no supernatural.
Also remember until finished its not working so Nat Sel is out trying to kill the imperfected " creation"
This is your mission impossible. Tape burns up after you've read it.