Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[Dan From Smithville]

To sum up, we've had a lot of logical fallacies, claims, declarations of victory, declarations of position as fact, but no demonstrations or evidence to convince a rational person that any claim has merit. Most of them don't make much sense and there is every indication that the understanding of science and the particular science of abiogenesis, evolution and cosmology that has been displayed in opposition to science are poorly understood if at all.

I can't imagine claiming God inspires these attempts to deny science when there are so many errors, limited scope, logical fallacies and poor presentation. To me, it seems insulting to God to make such an irrational display so poorly and claim it for Him. All I have seen is so flawed and ham-handed, it wouldn't be useful in convincing someone in Alaska that it was snowing in December.

If I used the tactics and methods of claim and evidence by declaration alone seen on these related threads, I couldn't convince @John53 that he lives in Australia.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

To sum up, we've had a lot of logical fallacies, claims, declarations of victory, declarations of position as fact, but no demonstrations or evidence to convince a rational person that any claim has merit. Most of them don't make much sense and there is every indication that the understanding of science and the particular science of abiogenesis, evolution and cosmology that has been displayed in opposition to science are poorly understood if at all.

I can't imagine claiming God inspires these attempts to deny science when there are so many errors, limited scope, logical fallacies and poor presentation. To me, it seems insulting to God to make such an irrational display so poorly and claim it for Him. All I have seen is so flawed and ham-handed, it wouldn't be useful in convincing someone in Alaska that it was snowing in December.

If I used the tactics and methods of claim and evidence by declaration alone seen on these related threads, I couldn't convince @John53 that he lives in Australia.

More false accusations from you prove evolution is false and you have fulfilled very many Bible prophecies very many times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More false accusations from you prove evolution is false and you have fulfilled very many Bible prophecies very many times.

What accusations of his are false? I am betting that you cannot name one.

This technique does not work when your opponent has been honest.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What accusations of his are false? I am betting that you cannot name one.

This technique does not work when your opponent has been honest.

What a laugh.

Document how any foot evolved, Give times and descriptions of all proteins and genes involved and of course the actual species involved. Also document how this was possible given sexual reproduction.
Also include all calculations and give the location of where the fossil evidences were found and all dating information with properly documented error ranges.
Evolutionists have made the claim and so you must prove it.
I will want the same for 100s of other irreducibly complex organs and functions. For example toes and the amount in each species.
Also do not forget the eyes, the ears, the heart, the hands and fingers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What accusations of his are false? I am betting that you cannot name one.

This technique does not work when your opponent has been honest.

It is becoming well-established that this is the best that we are going to see in response to anything posted here. Accusations of accusations and nothing of substance. Claims without support or merit seems to be the fodder that the entire position is based on. Attempts to redirect the burden of proof and somehow "win" by default without effort seems to be the order of this particular version of science denial. I suppose when all else fails, portraying oneself as a victim must seem like a good idea. I can't imagine it is good witness. I wouldn't do it.

It isn't much of a victory to recognize a pattern and see it played out in heavy rotation when the pattern doesn't measure up to what it is supposed to represent based on the evidence I've seen so far. I know from reading here, that I'm the only one to recognize it or that it wasn't recognized early in the limited life of these related threads.

I do have to admire the persistence. Especially in light of the fact that the attempts are so obvious and that no one has missed what is being attempted. Perhaps one has missed it, but that may be willful.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I see the persistence to establish logical fallacies as the basis for denying science. I do not see that as good witness for God and never will.

I think that anything that could be said about the foot on these threads would be more about where it can be found in the moment and whose teeth marks are on it rather than any rational (or irrational as seems the desire of the OP) discussion of its evolution.

It does seem fitting to me to find it in the queue of objects forming the basis of another attempt at logical fallacies.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Irreducible complexity amounts to an argument from ignorance and something that is logically impossible to demonstrate.

It is an argument from ignorance by claiming that what we do not know must mean that some structure or complex is irreducible. When Behe tried to sell examples of this ignorance he was defeated at every turn. Simplified versions with function for of every example he came up with were found and his claimed irreducible complexity was refuted.

It is not logically possible to find and test every potential iteration of a complex structure or its potential antecedents, so the irreducibility of a structure cannot be demonstrated or proven.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm laughing. I don't think I'm alone. I know I've been laughing for some time now. Shaking my head a lot too.

I can't even count the times I've had someone preach to me what amounts to a demand to stick my head in the sand.

Sure. That seems rational. Some person I never met, with obvious bias and little knowledge demands that everyone should ignore evidence and listen to his or her word as if it were some sort of scripture to be followed or else.

I'm laughing a lot.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The bottom line here is that many claims have been made by the OP, but no one of them has been demonstrated. No once. Not at all. For example, the claim of irreducible complexity. It has not been established and since it is the claim of the OP, it must first be demonstrated to exist and then shown to be the condition of any structure or complex that is claimed as irreducible.

That hasn't happened and I don't see it happening.

Those are the facts.

Watching all these attempts to get around the burden of proof and establish even the most minute credibility of any claim I've seen so far continues to make me laugh.

I'm smiling as I type this.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Of course it is, Have you no understanding of how complex the eye and vision is?
Have you no understanding of how many proteins are involved?
Have you no understanding of the enzymes that are needed?
I could go on and on but obviously you no nothing just preach your false religion as if any of it is proven fact.

We all know you can go on - such stamina for so little reward.

Try explaining this without evolution - or just give your Bible explanation as usual, but not sure a proper explanation appears there, given the writers would not have had the knowledge:

More than half your body is not human

Human cells make up only 43% of the body's total cell count, while the rest are microscopic colonists.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Subduction Zone]

O

What a laugh.

Document how any foot evolved, Give times and descriptions of all proteins and genes involved and of course the actual species involved. Also document how this was possible given sexual reproduction.
Also include all calculations and give the location of where the fossil evidences were found and all dating information with properly documented error ranges.
Evolutionists have made the claim and so you must prove it.
I will want the same for 100s of other irreducibly complex organs and functions. For example toes and the amount in each species.
Also do not forget the eyes, the ears, the heart, the hands and fingers.

Once again, until you change your ways you do not get to demand answers. I will always gladly help you to learn, but right now you cannot even justify your questions. Much less understand any response to them.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

O
Once again, until you change your ways you do not get to demand answers. I will always gladly help you to learn, but right now you cannot even justify your questions. Much less understand any response to them.

So you cannot defend the theory of evolution and billions of years. Of course you can’t as it is a lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you cannot defend the theory of evolution and billions of years. Of course you can’t as it is a lie.

Why do you make such obviously false statements? You were offered answers in that post. How is that not defending?

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, the theory of evolution and billions of years is very stupid and very unpersuasive.

Don’t be a fool. You know I’m talking about your post.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Don’t be a fool. You know I’m talking about your post.

The John Steinbeck quote is revealing .

 

[Watchmen]

The John Steinbeck quote is revealing .

It’s a great quote from a great book from a great writer.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It’s a great quote from a great book from a great writer.

What book was that?

 

[Alien826]

It is not logically possible to find and test every potential iteration of a complex structure or its potential antecedents, so the irreducibility of a structure cannot be demonstrated or proven.

The point is generally presented as the impossibility of the eye (say) having developed by a series of small steps, each having a survival advantage over the previous state. It does seem unlikely at first, but then I read someone who set out a series of steps that could have done the job. It started with a small group of light sensitive cells that would warn the creature of the approach of a predator. Of course, that can't be demonstrated as there would be no record of most of it, but it did suffice to answer the "impossible" claim.

Something else that I liked was a statement to the effect that if the entire ToE was to be falsified, that wouldn't cause the scientific community to cry "It must be God!".

Incidentally, I wish the YEC crowd would more often address the likelihood of a being like the Christian God existing at all. It's usually along the lines of "God exists because ..." and ignores all the questions that then arise.

 

[Watchmen]

What book was that?

Cannery Row

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The point is generally presented as the impossibility of the eye (say) having developed by a series of small steps, each having a survival advantage over the previous state. It does seem unlikely at first, but then I read someone who set out a series of steps that could have done the job. It started with a small group of light sensitive cells that would warn the creature of the approach of a predator. Of course, that can't be demonstrated as there would be no record of most of it, but it did suffice to answer the "impossible" claim.

Something else that I liked was a statement to the effect that if the entire ToE was to be falsified, that wouldn't cause the scientific community to cry "It must be God!".

Incidentally, I wish the YEC crowd would more often address the likelihood of a being like the Christian God existing at all. It's usually along the lines of "God exists because ..." and ignores all the questions that then arise.

Or the evolutionist who says the eye evolved because if not we are wrong.