Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[Desert Snake]

If pink flamingos are still possible, then there's no point to this discussion.

You're making subjective assumptions, errors, and boundaries to continue your argument. Just like I did to suggest that God does not exist.

I'm using the information in context of my belief, as per the stated belief or claim in the op, so what.

It's still a matter of opinion.

As in, it's an individual belief, etc, yes of course of it is, never said otherwise.

 

[suncowiam]

I'm using the information in context of my belief, as per the stated belief or claim in the op, so what.

As in, it's an individual belief, etc, yes of course of it is, never said otherwise.

Fair enough, I'll leave you to your beliefs. Thanks

 

[leibowde84]

Obviously he made no assertion about ID, because he doesn't understand anything about how choosing works in the first place, like all evolutionists. Still the findings are predicted and consistent with intelligent design. That the evolutionist will fit another theory to it than ID is a given.

But the reasonable thing to do given the observations would be to formulate a theory in terms of how the DNA is chosen. That is already the most reasonable course if one just looks at the integrated complexity of an organism. It is not scientific to try to avoid freedom, that is just playing games. It is siding with the cause and effect idea, the idea of things being forced, and then play for your side against the other side.

And when in stead of intelligent design, and in stead of random mutation, you provide a whole bunch of mutation mechanisms, then the coherence of the theory is lost.

Why do you disregard the obvious possibility that we are still figuring natural selection out? Just allow the evidence to lead the way. There is a mountain of evidence supporting evolution.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm using the information in context of my belief, as per the stated belief or claim in the op, so what.

As in, it's an individual belief, etc, yes of course of it is, never said otherwise.

So, you aren't making the claim that evolution is false?

 

[suncowiam]

Obviously he made no assertion about ID, because he doesn't understand anything about how choosing works in the first place, like all evolutionists. Still the findings are predicted and consistent with intelligent design. That the evolutionist will fit another theory to it than ID is a given.

But the reasonable thing to do given the observations would be to formulate a theory in terms of how the DNA is chosen. That is already the most reasonable course if one just looks at the integrated complexity of an organism. It is not scientific to try to avoid freedom, that is just playing games. It is siding with the cause and effect idea, the idea of things being forced, and then play for your side against the other side.

And when in stead of intelligent design, and in stead of random mutation, you provide a whole bunch of mutation mechanisms, then the coherence of the theory is lost.

I'm not following you in some areas nor I agree with you in others. Let's just agree to disagree as the saying goes. I'm going to politely exit this discussion. Thanks

 

[Revoltingest]

That would mean something if you can refer to any single evolutionist among the millions of them who can provide a scientific description how any choice is made, regardless if the choice is human, animal, or out in nature. There is no evolutionist who has a scientific understanding about how choosing works, that shortcoming is a prerequisite to becoming an evolutionist.

This just isn't making any sense to me.
You haven't fully described this novel use of the word "choose".

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Its not. The author is a biologist not lacking intellect.

This is a prime example of what happens when people with no knowledge on a topic debate unarmed, and quote support instead of dissent.

The author is plainly lacking intellect about how any choosing works.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This just isn't making any sense to me.
You haven't fully described this novel use of the word "choose".

It isn't novel, it is the common and religious understanding of choosing. And I already explained to you 3 times that the agency of a decision is a subjective issue. I talked about different ways of choosing, the genome chosen all at once, or chosen in parts with consideration of the whole, etc. There is simply something wrong with you that you are against knowledge about how things are chosen.

 

[Desert Snake]

So, you aren't making the claim that evolution is false?

The op states creationism so that's the position i'm proposing. Whether evolution loses credibility in the process is just a by-product of the argument/s/.

Nothing is stopping anyone from putting their opinion in a specific context,

 

[leibowde84]

It isn't novel, it is the common and religious understanding of choosing. And I already explained to you 3 times that the agency of a decision is a subjective issue. I talked about different ways of choosing, the genome chosen all at once, or chosen in parts with consideration of the whole, etc. There is simply something wrong with you that you are against knowledge about how things are chosen.

You haven't explained how you know that all organisms "choose", though.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why do you disregard the obvious possibility that we are still figuring natural selection out? Just allow the evidence to lead the way. There is a mountain of evidence supporting evolution.

Because I have no prejudice against freedom. It is just an obvious and legitemate hypothesis to me. So when the evidence points to freedom, then I will look for a theory about how it is chosen. When the evidence looks like it is forced, then I will look for a theory in terms of it being forced. The evidence, what organisms look like, points to that organisms are chosen as a whole in a reasoned and informed way. If organisms looked more chaotic, then I would look for a theory about randomness and errors in copying.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You haven't explained how you know that all organisms "choose", though.

It's in the nature of freedom. Choosing is the mechanism of creation, it underlays everything. You cannot first have something, and then later after a few billions of years of things you have a mechanism of creation, people's creativity. The mechanism of creation is first, it is by this mechanism that everything is created, the entire universe.

 

[Revoltingest]

It isn't novel, it is the common and religious understanding of choosing.

I'm not religious, so your usage is foreign to me.
Moreover, it is novel in the field of evolutionary biology.

And I already explained to you 3 times that the agency of a decision is a subjective issue. I talked about different ways of choosing, the genome chosen all at once, or chosen in parts with consideration of the whole, etc. There is simply something wrong with you that you are against knowledge about how things are chosen.

It seems you're presupposing that some entity is doing the "choosing", as
opposed to treating evolution as a stochastic system with emergent properties.
Simply put, you're presuming your conclusion as a premise.
What's wrong with me is that I recognize bafflegab & fallacy.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I'm not religious, so your usage is foreign to me.
Moreover, it is novel in the field of evolutionary biology.

It seems you're presupposing that some entity is doing the "choosing", as opposed to treating evolution as a stochastic system with emergent properties.
Simply put, you're presuming your conclusion as a premise.
What's wrong with me is that I recognize bafflegab & fallacy.

I already explained to you 4 times that the agency of a decision is not any part of the science about how choosing works, that this is a subjective issue. Yet you persist that I am positing an "enitity". That's you having a problem, there is nothing wrong with the explanation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I already explained to you 4 times that the agency of a decision is not any part of the science about how choosing works, that this is a subjective issue. Yet you persist that I am positing an "enitity". That's you having a problem, there is nothing wrong with the explanation.

At some point one must ask oneself.
Are people failing to understand me because they're all dumb, or am I failing to explain it well?

I'm not dumb.....I have an IQ of almost 70.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

At some point one must ask oneself.
Are people failing to understand me because they're all dumb, or am I failing to explain it well?

I'm not dumb.....I have an IQ of almost 70.

You should have a clue by that you have no scientific description of how any decision is made, that you simply have no idea about how it works.

 

[Revoltingest]

You should have a clue by that you have no scientific description of how any decision is made, that you simply have no idea about how it works.

I yield to your superior scientific knowledge.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I yield to your superior scientific knowledge.

You do no such thing. You destroy any and all knowledge about how things are chosen, and you discard subjectivity.

 

[Revoltingest]

You do no such thing. You destroy any and all knowledge about how things are chosen, and you discard subjectivity.

Don't get angry....I admit you win.

 

[Shad]

Obviously he made no assertion about ID, because he doesn't understand anything about how choosing works in the first place, like all evolutionists. Still the findings are predicted and consistent with intelligent design. That the evolutionist will fit another theory to it than ID is a given.

But the reasonable thing to do given the observations would be to formulate a theory in terms of how the DNA is chosen. That is already the most reasonable course if one just looks at the integrated complexity of an organism. It is not scientific to try to avoid freedom, that is just playing games. It is siding with the cause and effect idea, the idea of things being forced, and then play for your side against the other side.

And when in stead of intelligent design, and in stead of random mutation, you provide a whole bunch of mutation mechanisms, then the coherence of the theory is lost.

Typical ID rant. Post a biologist questioning a mechanic of evolution, assume this topples evolution, proceed with creationism babble. In no way does anything of his ideas support your views since you keep your views a vague as possible. Ambiguity fallacy.