Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[leibowde84]

I just explained why it is incorrect in this context.

It applies to all contexts. It is a basic logical fallacy. It is ignoring the other obvious option ... "A natural process we are not aware of yet."

 

[Desert Snake]

No, it just means that the absence of an alternative to your theory that God had something to do it doesn't support your claim at all.

It doesn't refute it lol.

 

[Desert Snake]

"we assume a creator because of the absence of no other logical option." This is what is meant by the God of the gaps logical fallacy.

Respective of other evidence. I already explained this. Your 'god of the gaps' nonsense, is if there is no other alternative evidence, etc. That is not my position; the evidence concludes Deity, as per my position in the OP.

 

[leibowde84]

It doesn't refute it lol.

That's true. Never claimed otherwise. My point is that it doesn't provide any real support.

 

[leibowde84]

Respective of other evidence. I already explained this. Your 'god of the gaps' nonsense, is if there is no other alternative evidence, etc. That is not my position; the evidence concludes Deity, as per my position in the OP. If you don't have evidence for anything, then why are you even arguing it? If you think that I have no evidence, then you still have to prove that what I've presented is less likely than the alternative. Which is ironically, not even your stated position. lol

My claim is that your reasoning is flawed logically. There is no responsibility to provide any alternative explanation to creationism to do this.

 

[leibowde84]

Respective of other evidence. I already explained this. Your 'god of the gaps' nonsense, is if there is no other alternative evidence, etc. That is not my position; the evidence concludes Deity, as per my position in the OP.

Our opinion that something is too complex to be random can easily point to our lack of scientific understanding just as easily as it can be claimed to point to God. IMHO, it is a given, because we know our scientific understanding to be incredibly limited.

 

[Desert Snake]

Our opinion that something is too complex to be random can easily point to our lack of scientific understanding just as easily as it can be claimed to point to God. IMHO, it is a given, because we know our scientific understanding to be incredibly limited.

Your argument is specific, not broad, or general, in application. Ie it's a personal argument, not one that can be used logically in debate. It's something to think about, but, asking people to not reach logical conclusions because of it is not realistic.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Ah, but then here is another amino acid that wasn't created by humans but occured naturally, making 21 amino acids.

"In high school biology classes, we learn that there are 20 amino acids. But in the past two decades, researchers have discovered two additional amino acids that are incorporated into natural genetic codes – selenocysteine (Sec) and pyrrolysine (Pyl). Every amino acid has its own transfer RNA (tRNA) and aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase (aaRS). The tRNA molecule binds specifically to the amino acid and brings it to the site of protein synthesis. The enzyme aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase specifically attaches the amino acid to its tRNA.

The twenty-first amino acid, Sec, has its own specific codon and tRNA, but it lacks its own aaRS. In fact, Sec is synthesized through the modification of the canonical amino acid serine after its attachment to the Sec tRNA. Pyl, on the other hand, has its own specific codon, tRNA, and aaRS. Thus, the entrance of Pyl into the natural genetic codes of certain organisms also marks the evolution of the first non-canonical aaRS and tRNA."

http://www.yalescientific.org/2009/10/expanding-the-genetic-code-discovery-of-two-new-amino-acids/

And another:

"COLUMBUS, Ohio – Two years ago, Ohio State University researchers surprised the scientific community by announcing their discovery of a 22nd genetically encoded amino acid.

Now they have capped that discovery with news that they have successfully synthesized the amino acid itself – L-pyrrolysine – and shown that bacteria can incorporate it into new proteins – the biological components which do most of the work in cells.

The importance of their work is the explanation of exactly how the 22nd amino acid is incorporated into proteins inside living cells. The genetic instructions to put pyrrolysine into proteins follows a traditional path that many scientists had not predicted.

For decades following the discovery of the structure of DNA, the dogma was that the genes in the DNA were decoded to produce proteins built from only 20 “canonical” amino acids.

But in 1986, researchers discovered that a 21st amino acid – selenocysteine – was incorporated into certain proteins. What separated selenocysteine from the other previously identified amino acids was the fact that it was inserted into protein by a very different path.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/aminosyn.htm

But you can ignore those too, if you'd like.

They are very obviously exceptions which work differently from the other 20.

And what you are doing is arguing for chaos. That it's all an unstructured happenstance, formed by error, and then in a chaotic mess developing the organism. Loose facts, except only natural selection bringing some order. It is garbage, I am satisfied with that conclusion.

 

[dust1n]

They are very obviously exceptions which work differently from the other 20.

Are there the same exceptions for "20 algebraic elements of fermionic+vacuum structure"? If so, what are the 22 elements? If not, then they aren't analogous to amino acids.

And what you are doing is arguing for chaos. That it's all an unstructured happenstance, formed by error, and then in a chaotic mess developing the organism. Loose facts, except only natural selection bringing some order. It is garbage, I am satisfied with that conclusion.

I'm actually just arguing that your claim "the dna system has the same mathematical ordering as the physical universe" isn't supported with any evidence you provided, regardless if the world is ordered or chaotic.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Are there the same exceptions for "20 algebraic elements of fermionic+vacuum structure"? If so, what are the 22 elements? If not, then they aren't analogous to amino acids.



I'm actually just arguing that your claim "the dna system has the same mathematical ordering as the physical universe" isn't supported with any evidence you provided, regardless if the world is ordered or chaotic.

I provided the evidence that the main structure is mathematically the same. Then you had some idea that there are smurfs on television in the physical universe, and demanded a dna equivalent of that, or otherwise there is no evidence, and it is disproven. Your argumentation I find to be garbage. Your argumentation is typical darwinist struggling for the win regardless of anything. Whatever works to win, any intellectual merit is damned.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Here are your claims to be clear:
1. Pink Flamingos prove creationism.
2. In your words, creationism means "God created everything as is"
3.

4. Thus, you are assuming that the complexity of life means that there must have been a designer and God has to be that designer.

As you already know creationism has 2 parts, creator and creation. The creation is fact, the creator opinion.

Looking at the flamingo we can see that it was chosen as a whole. Either all at once in a single decision, or several decisions where each decision is in consideration of the whole.

Who the creator is, is categorically a matter of opinion. It could just as well be the devil as God according to the logic of subjectivity. Just the same way that both the conclusions the painting is beautiful, and the painting is ugly, are logically valid opinions.

In any case any proposed fact about who the creator is, is logically invalid. Facts require force while any creator requires freedom. To say it is a fact who the creator is, means to impose the logic of being forced on the creator.

You all keep on rejecting subjectivity, you have no emotional basis. You are senselessly competing fact against opinion to the total destruction of all what is good, loving and beautiful

 

[dust1n]

I provided the evidence that the main structure is mathematically the same. Then you had some idea that there are smurfs on television in the physical universe, and demanded a dna equivalent of that, or otherwise there is no evidence, and it is disproven.

Huh? Your argument for your claim "the dna system has the same mathematical ordering as the physical universe" is this chart

Which insinuates there are 20 amino acids, and this is corresponding to "20 algebraic elements of fermionic+vacuum structure," implying a consistent unification of physics and biology based on... numbers matching up. There aren't, however 20 amino acids. There are 22 known amino acids. Unless you can demonstrate that "20 algebraic elements of fermionic+vacuum structure" exist, then your chart, which is the only basis of your argument, is false.

The 2 additional amino acids found in the last 20 years are not "that there are 2 smurfs on television in the universe" but that the premise from your argument is based on this one picture you presented when I asked for evidence, and it is demonstrably false. Welcome to science.

Also, by the way, why don't you source your material next time, like presenting where you got this picture from. Fig. 9? From what publication?

Does it also list what these "20 algebraic elements of fermionic+vacuum structure" are?

Your argumentation I find to be garbage. Your argumentation is typical darwinist struggling for the win regardless of anything. Whatever works to win, any intellectual merit is damned.

Buddy, listen, I already know, with great certainty, that you think any argumentation I find to be garbage, and a typical Darwinist whatever to do whatever. I think your 20th iteration of this fact to me and to everyone else you debate with tends to stick with people, and they remember this. So, it's not really necessary to say it all the time. I already assume that you will always think any argument as such, no matter how clearly it demonstrates whatever argument you are making is not actually based in reality.

 

[Desert Snake]

It applies to all contexts. It is a basic logical fallacy. It is ignoring the other obvious option ... "A natural process we are not aware of yet."

This is your personal speculation; it has nothing to do with my opinions etc. Frankly it doesn't even have meaning to me, no context, no specificity, just some vague musing.

 

[McBell]

That isn't my responsibly to format your claims. This is part of the problem; If you don't know the arguments for or against the claims you are making, or even recognize that your making claims, how are you going to argue them? This is the most common problem in these debates, but the fact is, it is not my responsibility to argue against my own position, it's yours, if you want to argue against it. That being said, if you haven't done your homework, it isn't my problem, it merely means that you don't know the subject.

 

[McBell]

No, for a couple reasons. First, I have sufficient evidence to present my belief in a 'most likely format'. This does not mean that the onus is on me to present evidence in order to convince other people. So, you are making an assumption, there. Secondly, 'god of the gaps', is a silly concept. What gaps, etc., it has no place in a serious dialogue. Basically, merely because someone makes a thread concerning one topic, does not mean that they must prove the pre-suppositional argument, to others. That's impractical and the reason why we have separate topics, etc.

bull ****.

If you had anything at all other than bold empty claims to support your bold empty claims, you would have presented it.

Instead, you merely muscle through as though you have not been thoroughly refuted at every turn.

You are nothing but a plaything for the bored.

 

[Desert Snake]

My claim is that your reasoning is flawed logically. There is no responsibility to provide any alternative explanation to creationism to do this.

Great, you haven't proven that claim though. Even if I were incorrect, if you haven't proven or can't argue a claim, it's useless to just say 'no, that's wrong'.

 

[Desert Snake]

bull ****.

If you had anything at all other than bold empty claims to support your bold empty claims, you would have presented it.

Instead, you merely muscle through as though you have not been thoroughly refuted at every turn.

You are nothing but a plaything for the bored.

Other way around, no actual arguments have been offered that refute my position, i'm humoring all this nonsense because there might be by-product debate of interest. It was your decision to pick an argument you don't have an answer to, and now it;'s just backpeddling from here on out. lol.

 

[McBell]

Other way around, no actual arguments have been offered that refute my position, i'm humoring all this nonsense because there might be by-product debate of interest. It was your decision to pick an argument you don't have an answer to, and now it;'s just backpeddling from here on out. lol.

Thank you for further demonstrating my point.

 

[McBell]

Great, you haven't proven that claim though. Even if I were incorrect, if you haven't proven or can't argue a claim, it's useless to just say 'no, that's wrong'.

Interesting the number of double standards you reveal in this thread.

 

[Desert Snake]

Thank you for further demonstrating my point.

I'm not even aware of your opinion/position on this.....do you want to present it?