Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[popsthebuilder]

It can diagnosis it. Doesn't that count for something?

Explaining the observable is something, yet can close the mind to other possibilities that can be found without relying solely on the physical to explain them away.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Flawed logic maybe. Explain how it doesn't work logically please.

Validity. To help you with your counter: What the Tortoise Said to Achilles

 

[popsthebuilder]

But, there is no evidence supporting creationism that is verifiable, but there is for evolution. So doesn't that make evolution more likely?

Not at all. Most of what is considered fact through the observation of the physical is actually just theory. To claim one should never throw out the other.

 

[dust1n]

Not at all. Most of what is considered fact through the observation of the physical is actually just theory.

And the most of what is considered fact through extrapolation of a very old text is more than "actually just theory"?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Not at all. Most of what is considered fact through the observation of the physical is actually just theory. To claim one should never throw out the other.

Geocentric Solar System theory is a legitimate thing. Yet I imagine that you, like most everyone on Earth, adhere to the Heliocentric model... Why do you do that, if not for the empirical data which supports one model over the other?

Using your own logic, shouldn't you keep the Geocentric model of the Solar System close to your heart, despite the fact that the Heliocentric model has more observational data supporting it? After all, it's mostly just theory, right?

 

[dust1n]

Well, no, not practically, or conforming to probability. I already explained this earlier in the thread.

Actually, you were asked what seemed like several hundred times, to actually show that pink flamingos do not "conform to probability" with the actual statistical calculations, and the only explanation anyone received is why you thin you shouldn't be required to actually show the mathematical explanation for your reasoning.

 

[leibowde84]

The species were simply not designed to last forever. As individuals are not designed to last forever, it makes no sense why species would be designed to last forever. Each of these species you mention were of course highly efficiently organized and super complex organisms. And none of them had the sort of cancerous chaos one would expect on account of random mutations. The design of an individual is mainly only the adult organism. You can tell when somebody is before, at, or after, the designed adulthood.

But there is a plethora of examples of "cancerous chaos" throughout the history of life on earth. Individual organism who's mutations negatively effect them either don't last too long or they don't have a reasonable chance to reproduce and pass along their DNA. Are you just ignoring this fact?

 

[leibowde84]

Not at all. Most of what is considered fact through the observation of the physical is actually just theory. To claim one should never throw out the other.

I never said "throw it out". But, if there is more objective, verifiable evidence supporting one option, it is reasonable to lean that way. Don't you agree?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But there is a plethora of examples of "cancerous chaos" throughout the history of life on earth. Individual organism who's mutations negatively effect them either don't last too long or they don't have a reasonable chance to reproduce and pass along their DNA. Are you just ignoring this fact?

I have not seen much of the "cancerous chaos". But indeed evolutionists must go looking for it, to prove their theory.

 

[dust1n]

I have not seen much of the "cancerous chaos". But indeed evolutionists must go looking for it, to prove their theory.

Tay–Sachs disease (also known as GM2 gangliosidosis or hexosaminidase A deficiency) is a rare autosomal recessivegenetic disorder. In its most common variant (known as infantile Tay–Sachs disease), it causes a progressive deterioration of nerve cells and of mental and physical abilities that begins around six months of age and usually results in death by the age of four. The disease occurs when harmful quantities of cell membrane components known as gangliosidesaccumulate in the brain's nerve cells, eventually leading to the premature death of the cells. A ganglioside is a form of sphingolipid, which makes Tay–Sachs disease a member of thesphingolipidoses. There is no known cure or treatment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay–Sachs_disease

Neurofibromatosis (NF) refers to a number of inherited conditions that are clinically and genetically distinct and carry a high risk of tumor formation, particularly in the brain.[1]Neurofibromatosis is an autosomal dominant disorder, which means only one copy of the affected gene is needed for the disorder to develop. Therefore, if only one parent has neurofibromatosis, his or her children have a 50% chance of developing the condition as well (it is rarely the case that one person has the mutated gene twice, which would imply a 100% chance of his or her children developing NF). The severity in affected individuals can vary; this may be due to variableexpressivity. Approximately half of cases are due to de novo mutations and no other affected family members are seen. It affects males and females equally. In addition, some individuals may have mosaic NF, in which some but not all cells of the body carry the mutation. The neurofibromatoses are as follows:

• Neurofibromatosis type I, in which the nerve tissue grows tumors (neurofibromas) that may bebenign and may cause serious damage by compressing nerves and other tissues.
• Neurofibromatosis type II, in which bilateral acoustic neuromas (tumors of thevestibulocochlear nerve or cranial nerve 8 (CN VIII) also known as schwannoma) develop, often leading to hearing loss.
• Schwannomatosis, in which painful schwannomas develop on cranial, spinal and peripheral nerves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurofibromatosis

Becker muscular dystrophy (also known as Benign pseudohypertrophic muscular dystrophy) is an X-linked recessive inherited disorder characterized by slowly progressive muscle weakness of the legs and pelvis.

It is a type of dystrophinopathy, which includes a spectrum of muscle diseases in which there is insufficient dystrophin produced in the muscle cells, resulting in instability in the structure of muscle cell membrane. This is caused by mutations in the dystrophin gene, which encodes the proteindystrophin. Becker muscular dystrophy is related to Duchenne muscular dystrophy in that both result from a mutation in the dystrophin gene, but in Duchenne muscular dystrophy no functional dystrophin is produced making DMD much more severe than BMD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becker's_muscular_dystrophy

...

To name just three of thousandsss... I invite you to look at pictures of these disorders and tell me if these disorders are chaotic.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I never said "throw it out". But, if there is more objective, verifiable evidence supporting one option, it is reasonable to lean that way. Don't you agree?

Surely I do. The problem is that in conceding in such theories some seem to expel other theories from their grasp as opposed to testing them to see if they, in fact, contradict one another. In this case they do not.

 

[viole]

They can infer creationism from probability inference. meaning, ''Randomness'', has a specific meaning, it means non-ordered or non-purposely ordered. Now, one would think that the randomness problem is easily explained by matter connectivity, ie different elements interacting, randomly; this is compatible with random process theoretically, though that could be argued., Anyway, the problem with the randomness idea, in general, is that random things happen more than once. Hence the coin flips discussed in the thread. So, randomly, you can assume that you won't get the same side every time you flip etc., it's just an analogy with variables, but it's useful. Now, the OP is using a set of coin flips, as it were, /the pink flamingos/, as an basis or unit for comparison to test probability. Since we would literally have something like (/1/0/), ie no comparison model, or measurement, really, people create formulas that mimic theoretical repetition probabilities. These formulas will vary depending on whatever, quite a few things. However, what the ''argument'' is ultimately reduced to is a position that there is no indication of randomness, /in reality/. The op is for realists, essentially. Anyways, because of the lack of repetition units, there is no indication of randomness; no indication of randomness is great if you think that there is more than /we'll say/ interactive randomness. It isn't so great if one believes in interactive randomness despite what is basically no probability of such, //in the actual formula//. Now, that's great. I personally have no problem with that sort of thinking. However it then necessarily affects other theories, and estimations. For example if I say, believe that the moon is made of green cheese, then it would affect other arguments, say, someone thought a distant moon was made of green cheese; with my adherence to the green cheese theory, it would not be intellectually sound or logical to tell that person that no moons are made of green cheese. It's contradictory, in essence. Clumsy analogy but it'll do. So, what we are faced with, essentially, is what is considered proof. Or rather what a person can logically assume to be proof. ''The moon exists'', is a belief that many people have. What is the proof of such. If someone said the moon did not exist, or that the belief in the moon was illogical, most people would simply shake their heads. But in the probability department, we can infer that (/1//0/) or even many hypothetical formulas, do not indicate randomness. Of course people can believe whatever they want, however it is important to remember inferred adherence when a position is taken. How many non-creationists are applying the same probability inferences to their other arguments. most likely none, /there might be a few/ lol.

I am not sure I am following you.

Do you think pink flamingos are clearly purposefully ordered, while the regular ones are not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

This obviously disproves evolution.
Why? Because choosing, probability & subjectivity.

Someone slap me now.

Yes, the world of science is stumped by the discovery of pink flamingos. I think that justifies transferring the burial rests of Darwin from Westminster Abbey to a less prestigious place.

Ciao

- viole

 

[First Baseman]

Yes, the world of science is stumped by the discovery of pink flamingos. I think that justifies transferring the burial rests of Darwin from Westminster Abbey to a less prestigious place.

Ciao

- viole

Why is Westminster Abbey a prestigious place?

 

[viole]

Why is Westminster Abbey a prestigious place?

Ask the Brits.

They even buried Newton there. And some kings, I expect.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why is Westminster Abbey a prestigious place?

Well, it is the alleged burial place of King Arthur and Guinevere. Or, at least at one point in time, until some unknown bodies were exhumed from the site during the 1600s.

 

[First Baseman]

Ask the Brits.

They even buried Newton there. And some kings, I expect.

Ciao

- viole

I'm asking you.

 

[viole]

I'm asking you.

Because they buried Newton, Darwin and several kings there. They also celebrate royal marriages there. I think.

I expect they consider it prestigious because of that. If not, they would have probably buried them somewhere else, don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

I have not seen much of the "cancerous chaos". But indeed evolutionists must go looking for it, to prove their theory.

They have already looked for it, examined it, and have used it to support their theory. Of course, you will remain ignorant of this until YOU actively go out and research this evidence and how it has been applied. Short of this, you will remain in the dark.

 

[leibowde84]

Surely I do. The problem is that in conceding in such theories some seem to expel other theories from their grasp as opposed to testing them to see if they, in fact, contradict one another. In this case they do not.

Creationism explicitly denies the theory of evolution and other natural processes though.

creationism
[kree-ey-shuh-niz-uh m]
noun
1. The doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially asthey now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

cre·a·tion·ism
krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/
noun

1. the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.