Irony of the evolutionary belief

[leroy]

If they would do so naturally by simply following their orbits and physical laws, then it would be natural and by definition be coincidental.

If not even stars (or any other object) organized such that they spell meaningful words and sentences count as evidence for design, then you are simply raising the bar unrealistically too high


And I'll bet you are being arbitrary, I'll bet that you only have this ridiculous standards, with stuff that opposes your own personal philosophical view

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like it, the probability we are a BB is really tiny and that is absurd.
10^600 times less likely than that is that the universe is fine tuned.
Since FT is that absurdly absurdly small a possibility and we are here (at least we think so since BBs are absurd) then obviously the universe is due to necessity.

And that would be an argument from ignorance going the other way that is just as wrong as @leroy's. I have no problem saying "we do not know" when that is the clear answer. I will add that when things were though to have to have been caused by God in the past we keep finding that no God was necessary. There has been no need for a "designer" ever shown to be the case.

The Fine Tuna Argument is only a fancy argument from ignorance, and their best example in the argument has been shown to be by physical necessity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If not even stars (or any other object) organized such that they spell meaningful words and sentences count as evidence for design, then you are simply raising the bar unrealistically too high


And I'll bet you are being arbitrary, I'll bet that you only have this ridiculous standards, with stuff that opposes your own personal philosophical view

You either misunderstood or ignored the refutations.

By the way, if you want to have scientific evidence then as you stated your case it is not scientific evidence for a God.

 

[Pogo]

And that would be an argument from ignorance going the other way that is just as wrong as @leroy's. I have no problem saying "we do not know" when that is the clear answer. I will add that when things were though to have to have been caused by God in the past we keep finding that no God was necessary. There has been no need for a "designer" ever shown to be the case.

The Fine Tuna Argument is only a fancy argument from ignorance, and their best example in the argument has been shown to be by physical necessity.

I was channeling Uncle Rodger without the pounding.
I'm better than Jaime though.

 

[gnostic]

Creation.com and Answers in Genesis are two major entities that have produced enormous amounts of material that cast doubt on many aspects of evolutionary "THEORY"! (you know what a theory is right?)

Of course, they have a lots of materials against Evolution, but neither are scientific research organisations, nor peer-reviewed science journal publishers.

Creation.com & Answers in Genesis are nothing more than propaganda organisations.

They would have to supply verifiable empirical evidence & data to support the Genesis Creation as scientific theory, and they would require to supply verifiable empirical evidence & data to refute the theory of Evolution.

There are no evidence & data for either ventures.

They are no better than the Discovery Institute, just a propaganda machine spitting out misinformation.

That you actually believe they are reliable sources for information, just showed how utterly ignorant & naive you really are. That you would sprout ringing endorsement on these dishonest organisations, is both laughable & tragic at the same time.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I am correct. You keep demonstrating it. I have tried to help you to learn. Others have tried to help you to learn. You keep making the same ridiculous errors no matter how many times that they are explained to you. If I am wrong then that means that you have been lying the whole time here. I do not think that you are a liar. You just won't let yourself learn. Probably due to the fears that were put upon you from birth.

It is not a false dichotomy since sooooooooo many have tried to help you and you still do not get it. So, do you not understand evolution at all or are you a liar? I can even repeat an argument of yours that demonstrates that you do not understand evolution.

Sorry, but you're not correct. You may think you are correct (which I doubt you do) but you are not. Have a good day.

 

[McBell]

Sorry, but you're not correct.

on which point, exactly?
that you refuse to learn what evolution actually is or that you are a liar?

 

[YoursTrue]

on which point, exactly?
that you refuse to learn what evolution actually is or that you are a liar?

I got textbooks on evolution, and from some of the posts (not too many, though, just arguments and insults from many evolutionists). I do not refuse to learn. So that's a lie you're saying about me. I can fully expect more lies and insults from you and others who delight in joking around about this, but yes, you and yours (you and they know who they are) have taught me a lot. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

on which point, exactly?
that you refuse to learn what evolution actually is or that you are a liar?

By the way, if you can't figure which point I am referring to, go back and look again. And remember -- please -- hope you have a nice day.

 

[McBell]

I got textbooks on evolution, and from some of the posts (not too many, though, just arguments and insults from many evolutionists). I do not refuse to learn. So that's a lie you're saying about me. I can fully expect more lies and insults from you and others who delight in joking around about this, but yes, you and yours (you and they know who they are) have taught me a lot. Thank you.

Interesting.
So they are wrong about you not learning.

Interesting you did not address, at all, the you being a liar part.

 

[YoursTrue]

Interesting.
So they are wrong about you not learning.

Interesting you did not address, at all, the you being a liar part.

You did not understand the point. I'll be more explicit for your sake: those who say I am a liar are lying. OK? Now do you understand?

 

[Audie]

I got textbooks on evolution, and from some of the posts (not too many, though, just arguments and insults from many evolutionists). I do not refuse to learn. So that's a lie you're saying about me. I can fully expect more lies and insults from you and others who delight in joking around about this, but yes, you and yours (you and they know who they are) have taught me a lot. Thank you.

Please give names of these " texts" lest thou
be doubted

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

there are no modern examples of the next level of progression or intermediatories between either...and there must be if the theory is true!

Whatever you are referring to there, the theory doesn't require that any particular intermediary form be found. It predicts that such forms existed, but not that they were preserved or will be found

Creation.com and Answers in Genesis are two major entities that have produced enormous amounts of material that cast doubt on many aspects of evolutionary "THEORY"!

No, they haven't. The theory has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, and nothing from any creationist source changes that. Your doubt is not reasonable because it is not based in reason. It's based in faith, which is the antithesis of reason.

Moreover, the creationists who reject evolutionary theory have no standing in the argument, but they shouldn't feel picked on. Neither do any lay people who happen to agree with the experts, people like me and the other humanists posting on RF.

(you know what a theory is right?) To illustrate my point about theories...I have a theory that one day i might become a billionare

It looks like it's you who doesn't understand what the word theory means in the phrase "the theory of evolution."

You also don't seem to understand the lay use of the word, which is a synonym for hypothesis. What you have is a hope.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You also don't seem to understand the lay use of the word, which is a synonym for hypothesis..

'lay use' ?
That's a good one.

A theory can be right, and it can be wrong.
A myth can be true, and it can be false.

Re. Th. of Ev. , the core is shown to be correct, and has not been disproved.
It is taught in Elementary Biology.

Some people like to play games, and confuse people .. it should be stipulated WHICH PART of the theory they refer to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, but you're not correct. You may think you are correct (which I doubt you do) but you are not. Have a good day.

And you continue to break the Ninth Commandment and run away confirming that fact.

 

[leroy]

Okay, that is not too bad.


Whoa (and sorry, I did not change your numbers, that occurred automatically) How do you know that it is not due to physical necessity? In fact I pointed out that the biggest one that creationists point to has been shown to be by physical necessity. The Sean Carrol video explained that to you. Are the others due to physical necessity? We do not know yet.


And how do you know that? Some of them may have been. We know that at least one if due to physical necessity. Who knows? the rest may be too. We don't know.

Sorry, you have not shown any reason at all for this conclusion. How can you show "design" to be more than "dumb luck" as an answer? You do not get to assume that it is easy.


But that is the very one that Sean Carroll covered. When you cannot do the math at all you cannot argue which answer is more likely. All that you have is an argument from ignorance. That is a logical fallacy.

It is impossible to read your posts without facepalming

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is impossible to read your posts without facepalming

You have that backwards. What was beyond your understanding in that post? It was quite clear? I can see that you did not even try to refute one whit of it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Whatever you are referring to there, the theory doesn't require that any particular intermediary form be found. It predicts that such forms existed, but not that they were preserved or will be found

PLUS there is nothing to show the minuscule incremental supposed changes by mutation in the organisms that evolve, such as fish becoming land-breathers. Now remember, I said nothing to show the minuscule incremental mutations...

 

[Subduction Zone]

PLUS there is nothing to show the minuscule incremental supposed changes by mutation in the organisms that evolve, such as fish becoming land-breathers. Now remember, I said nothing to show the minuscule incremental mutations...

The fossil record demonstrates that. But you do not understand that either.

Here is your problem, you do not understand the concept of evidence so providing you with evidence will not help you to understand.

 

[leroy]

You have that backwards. What was beyond your understanding in that post? It was quite clear? I can see that you did not even try to refute one whit of it.

The sillyness of your comments is beyond my understanding