Jump to content


Photo

America's Changing Religious Landscape

religion atheism christianity secular

  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#61 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 936 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 16 November 2016 - 01:23 AM

Ignoring your oversimplification, in essence, yes.

 

This 10 minute video that summarizes one plausible way this could have happened, "mindlessly", without intelligence. Start at 2:45 to skip the intro.

 

 

 

 

Yes, you do. I suppose if your explanation of an intelligent agent is indistinguishable from a set of phenomena that behave in a systematically predictable way, then sure it is "indistinguishable" from nature, but that would make an intelligent agent a non-parsimonious explanation.

 

 

Granted the entire cosmos is more complex than dropping a ball and watching it fall due to gravity, but the analogy is perfectly sound in describing how a "mindless" universe could give rise to what we see; namely it is the forces of nature at work. This is why your "mindless" motif is ultimately inconsequential.

 

 

An outer layering of some sort (your skin is composed of epithelial cells, and epithelial cells also line your organs) was probably developed before any truly distinct internal organs came about. If we look at one of the simpler animals, the hydra, we can see that it has a stomach but no real brain. I don't hate the phrase irreducible complexity, although I don't think it is as sound an argument as creationists believe.

 

"An outer layering of some sort (your skin is composed of epithelial cells, and epithelial cells also line your organs) was probably developed before any truly distinct internal organs came about."

 

Really? And just why would that happen? and how?  Your skin is an Organ.. The largest one of your body.  Read about it.. http://visual.ly/50-...acts-about-skin

 

"If we look at one of the simpler animals, the hydra, we can see that it has a stomach but no real brain."

 

Sorry to have to say this, but I must include many Darwinists in that group as well... how can you possibly believe that the human body is NOT Irreducibly complex?  Take away just ONE of man's 10 Vital interdependent organs and we die and go extinct... and you want me to believe that ALL 10 OF THEM EVOLVED AT THE SAME TIME IN ONE GENERATION??

 

 

So are you saying that a Hydra (which has ZERO to do with the subject of Man and his 10 vital organs)

could slowly evolve into a Man?  That appears to be what you are saying..   BTW the Hydra is ALSO Irreducibly COMPLEX!!

 

Darwinists remind me of the guy that got caught with a Gold Rolex Watch with the same serial # of a Watch that was stolen

last week,  and when questioned about it he said that it came from the ocean, After all it is Possible" for the ocean to occasionally

spit out a gold Rolex Watch, All of the Heat, Pressure, Raw materials and Eroding elements are in the ocean!!.. Even the serial #!!

(And Don't sit there and tell us it isn't possible,) Don't you think it is possible for a DNA molecule, encoded with millions of lines of

specific and complex information to come from the ocean as well?   Guess what,? It is MILLIONS IF TIMES more likely for that gold

Rolex Watch to come about by Purely Mindless Chaotic Random Naturalistic forces than it is for DNA.!!

 

I don't hate the phrase irreducible complexity, although I don't think it is as sound an argument as creationists believe.

 

Sure, Not at all.. :rotfl3:



#62 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,049 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 16 November 2016 - 09:46 AM

"An outer layering of some sort (your skin is composed of epithelial cells, and epithelial cells also line your organs) was probably developed before any truly distinct internal organs came about."

 

Really? And just why would that happen? and how?  Your skin is an Organ.. The largest one of your body.  Read about it.. http://visual.ly/50-...acts-about-skin

 

I meant that epithelial cells line internal organs like your intestines. Yes I know skin is an organ.
 

You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Epithelium 

 

"Epithelial tissues line the cavities and surfaces of blood vessels and organs throughout the body."

 

"If we look at one of the simpler animals, the hydra, we can see that it has a stomach but no real brain."

 

Sorry to have to say this, but I must include many Darwinists in that group as well... how can you possibly believe that the human body is NOT Irreducibly complex?  Take away just ONE of man's 10 Vital interdependent organs and we die and go extinct... and you want me to believe that ALL 10 OF THEM EVOLVED AT THE SAME TIME IN ONE GENERATION??

 

 

So are you saying that a Hydra (which has ZERO to do with the subject of Man and his 10 vital organs)

could slowly evolve into a Man?  That appears to be what you are saying..   BTW the Hydra is ALSO Irreducibly COMPLEX!!

 

I don't know how you got "all 10 of them evolved at the same time in one generation" from "this was done over many intermediate organisms where each organ underwent many stages itself and it wasn't a fully modern human stomach with no brain or lungs developing first."

 

The hydra is an example of an organism with a stomach but no brain, falsifying your claim that you need a brain to have a stomach. I am not saying a hydra evolved into a human; it is an example falsifying your claim. Irreducible complexity is a bad argument because it doesn't take into account the evolutionary process, or does so only on a surface level that resembles a caricature.

 

If you're looking for a human without a brain or stomach as an intermediate, then you simply have a fundamentally flawed view of how evolution works.

 

Darwinists remind me of the guy that got caught with a Gold Rolex Watch with the same serial # of a Watch that was stolen

last week,  and when questioned about it he said that it came from the ocean, After all it is Possible" for the ocean to occasionally

spit out a gold Rolex Watch, All of the Heat, Pressure, Raw materials and Eroding elements are in the ocean!!.. Even the serial #!!

(And Don't sit there and tell us it isn't possible,) Don't you think it is possible for a DNA molecule, encoded with millions of lines of

specific and complex information to come from the ocean as well?   Guess what,? It is MILLIONS IF TIMES more likely for that gold

Rolex Watch to come about by Purely Mindless Chaotic Random Naturalistic forces than it is for DNA.!!

 

I don't hate the phrase irreducible complexity, although I don't think it is as sound an argument as creationists believe.

 

Sure, Not at all.. :rotfl3:

 

The difference between a watch and a living organism is that living organisms reproduce; decent with modification coupled with differential reproduction. Also DNA would not have been the first molecule of inheritance.

 

Did you know that the concept of IC did not originate with Behe or any creationist/ID movement? It was originally proposed a few generations ago as a consequence of evolution and they called it interlocking complexity. It has to do with the origination of new structures and then evolving them to make these structures necessary in some way for survival. Take lungs for example. Our lungs evolved from swim bladders in fish. As we know swim bladders help control buoyancy; IOW it reduced the energy need for fish that want to maintain certain depths without expending extra energy through muscles. This organ is not necessary, but beneficial to survival so it was kept. As time went on this organ was modified and allowed some fish to live on land for short periods of time - think lung fish. As we moved more towards the land in our evolutionary development our primitive lungs became stronger and our gills became obsolete. This eventually resulted in our loss of gills and relying exclusively on our lungs for oxygen absorption, which is necessary for human life.



#63 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,049 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 16 November 2016 - 08:58 PM

There's a difference between being emotional, and being full of zeal because you know something is true but it can't be proven. For example, a man in prison, KNOWS he is innocent, but people judge based on limited evidence, that he is guilty and even pompously conclude why he is guilty, and think because they went with the objective evidence they are something special, because they obeyed a scientific method, but that method did not enable them to arrive at the truth.

 

All I am saying is, that a soduku puzzle relies on the ability to deduce, and if you have the highest score out of 13,000 goes, this is at least an indicator that you are able to deduce accurately and in the case of that game, quickly. Though it depends not just on quickness and logic, but the ability to solve a problem. 

 

 

I wouldn't put it like that. I would say that my clear ability to deduce accurately puts me in a position to judge the logic of the arguments and forms of arguments put forward by evolution/ists. If you had read what I said earlier on, I said that every claim in life uses reasoning/argument. Nothing at all in science, including evolution, can be without reasoning and argument; example; "this evidence here, therefore X, and if P over there then we can strongly suggest Y because it is peculiar and unique to Y".

 

So then, it is not the biology itself that I question, it is the arguments FROM the biology, I would say I am qualified to assess.

 

I apologise for getting hot and saying, "stick it up your arse", I admit frustration is something I am a long way off dealing with fully, but the Lord will deal with my sinful weaknesses in the end I hope. I only said that out of frustration, that was a hot post but we all have a bad post from time to time when we are tired.

 

I agree the truth is the truth, but I hope we can all agree that we have to determine what the truth is for ourselves; we can't look into a crystal ball and magically know every little truth. To that end we humans have come up with various ways to determine what the truth is, or what the truth most likely is. In that regard I think going with objective evidence is the most powerful tool we have for determining truth. So in the case of an innocent man being wrongfully jailed due to good evidence against him, both pragmatically and philosophically I don't think you can fault the court for finding the man guilty.

 

I don't deny that Sudoku requires logical thinking to solve, and your ability to do them well along with other logic-type puzzles means that you have an innate ability in those areas. However, evaluating academic theories is often more nuanced, deals with more variables, and requires general and specific knowledge in that subject.

 

Don't worry too much about hot posts; I don't take it personally. Based on my interactions with you on EFF I'd say you are a good person, but it could be that pesky objective evidence hiding the truth from me.  ;)

 

Of course one of the reasons a LITERAL court wouldn't be the best arena for an objective, totally neutral debate is because in that setting they would see science itself as neutrally valid, but the EvC debate is obviously a dispute of evolution which is considered to be science by the mainstream, meaning the most obvious logical mistake such a court will make is to side with science because of a generalisation fallacy.

 

Strictly and technically speaking, the matter of the universe being created does not depend on Genesis belief or the bible, in the sense that I myself as a creationist, would still believe in the creation, that it is a creation, even if I was to not believe in a strictly inerrant bible. Because the matter pertains to the creation of things that were created BEFORE the bible, then the bible itself was something that came AFTER the posited creation. Even if the bible did not exist, butterflies still do exist. So then like Romans says, the visible testifies to the invisible. We know there was a Mona Lisa painting because there is a Mona Lisa. The construction of the eyeball isn't up for debate, all of it's parts are designed to see, and are the usual specified complexity, even if the bible did not say so.

 

So really the kind of court room examples you refer to wasn't my initial idea Goku. My idea was more like the kind of courtroom experience where there is a jury of objective people, or a referee that doles out true neutrality, and acknowledges and understands why the sweeping generalisation fallacy cannot be regarded as a valid argument;

 

"Science is neutral and objective.

Evolution is science,

therefore evolution is neutral and objectively validated."

 

The form of that argument is a valid form but the fallacy is to conflate the group with the individual. An overt example of the mistake can be shown here;

 

"Children aren't allowed sweets in school.

Johnny is a child

Therefore Johnny isn't allowed sweets".

 

But the reason this argument is wrong is not explicit but implicit, Johnny has cancer and has three days to live. Thus an exception to the rule is not always special-pleading if and only if there is a genuinely good reason for the exception. Example;

 

"All people are equal.

The queen is a person

therefore the queen is equal".

 

You may object if I were to say, "nevertheless we must treat her like the queen since she is." But let us be honest, there is an exceptional circumstance, it would therefore be appropriate to call her, "your majesty".

 

Broadly speaking creationism is simply the belief that God (any God) created the universe. Theistic evolutionists are creationists in the broad sense of the word, although in our culture creationism usually refers to a rejection of 'evolution' by some adherent of an Abrahamic faith. There are Hindu creationists too, and they believe humanity and the world is much older than what modern science says.

 

In the case of evolution, evolution itself though treated as any other theory, must be objectively scrutinised if there is the slightest chance it has not been objectively treated because of unique or obscure factors. One of those factors is that evolution is the sole explanation it seems, for a scientific cause of life. It also allows atheists and non-religious people, more freedom, and there are motivations at play because if evolution is false the consequences would be disastrous to the scientific community, and to a non-religious position about the universe's existence.

 

I don't know any other scientific explanation, past or present, for the unity and diversity of life besides some variant of evolution. Of course evolution itself has some variants, like Lamarckianism, that have been discredited, and Darwinian evolution has been revised and is still being revised. As an analogy, would you say that gravity as the sole explanation for why objects are attracted to one another is an indication that perhaps gravity has not been objectively treated?

 

We can also say that creationism is extremely motivated by religious people, and for many that subscribe and promote creationism it would have a profound and disastrous effect on them psychologically (at least initially) if they came to the realization that creationism is false. In evolution's defense it is not just the non-religious that accept and promote it, but also the religious. Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller are two prominent theistic evolutionists. One of my biology professors, the only one to disclose their religious beliefs that I recall, was a theistic evolutionist. According to polling data the vast majority of religious scientists are theistic evolutionists. Of course this doesn't prove anything, but it does strongly speak to evolution's ability to persuade scientists that have no bias in favor of an atheistic paradigm. IOW you can't explain ToE's overwhelming acceptance among scientists due to some non-religious bias.

 

There is quite a difference between what science regards as valid or verified, and what logical notation as a separate tool, regards as valid and sound, also, and logic itself as a neutral and sound subject, must be heeded, and it's rules must be met, so if I/we can show that evolution as a theory, disregards logic which is arguably more solid than science in it's proves, then evolution must be guilty as charged.

 

Logic for example, tells us provably true things, meaning it is greater than science. There isn't one example of any contradiction in nature because of the law of non-contradiction yet evolution participates in contradictory reasonings where in some areas there is no possibility to falsify evolution. For example, if homology is evidence of evolution, then "not homology" is the only way to falsify evolution in this particular area of the debate. So then if a feature such as eyes, show homology that is not evolutionary, then this should logically count as falsification evidence, and any post-hoc excuses for why the evidence is still evolutionary somehow, must be regarded as astonishingly WEAK reasoning. For if homology is evidence of evolution but non-homological, "homological" features, are also evidence of evolution, then how according to non-contradiction, am I able to neutrally, logically and scientifically falsify evolution? In such an example, my hands are tied scientifically and logically, for the obvious falsification would be a whole host of homological features that could not have evolved, meaning the ones they posited to have evolved, also may not have evolved, since they are identical as evidence. So then the conjectural reasons evolution gives as to why evolution says some are homological and others are name-tagged, "homoplastic" to be coloured an evolutionary flavour, can only be regarded as conjectural excuses/storytelling, of evolution. Just because evolution explains away with weak reasons, it's faults, doesn't mean evolution can be let off the logical hook. Calling features that don't fit with the story of evolution, which is divergence, "homoplastic results of evolutionary convergence" is most laughable, logically, since convergence is 100% posited BELIEF in evolutionary miracles.

 

Let's be GENEROUS TO THE POINT OF ABSURDITY and say the chances of eyes evolving once are 1 in 2. Since they evolve seperately 40 times, according to the fictional story, that would mean 1 in 240.

 

Science uses logic all the time; it is one of science's tools. You can't get a degree in science without running into the basics in a science class at least a few times. If you write up a paper and submit it with logical fallacies it will be torn to shreds by any decent peer reviewer and will not be published. Of course scientists are not professional logicians, but due to their work having a strong working foundation of logical thinking is a necessity.

 

Technically homology is shared characteristics derived from a common ancestor, not any two features that appear similar.

 

Of course scientists use similar features as evidence of common ancestry, but they also know that it is not a guarantee. However, unless there is overriding evidence suggesting otherwise (e.g. fossil record) then common ancestry is generally considered the most parsimonious explanation.

 

I don't understand how convergent evolution falsifies evolution. If eyes show similar features that are not the result of common ancestry then those features are not homologous, but that doesn't in any way falsify ToE or mean that you can't explain why two organisms have similar features through common ancestry.

 

You seem to be saying that because gravity says things fall down, the fact that planes fly means that gravity is false; for how can objects falling and objects non-falling both be evidence for gravity? - gravity is thus unfalsifiable. Of course we know that the general rule that things fall down due to gravity can be overridden by other forces. Similarly we know that environmental pressures can cause separate lineages to develop similar structures independent of each other.

 

I have no idea what, "the obvious falsification would be a whole host of homological features that could not have evolved, meaning the ones they posited to have evolved, also may not have evolved, since they are identical as evidence", means. Convergent evolution doesn't mean they didn't evolve, it means they evolved independent of each other but due to environmental pressures similar structures were selected for. To falsify evolution you need to find something that that contradicts the theory.

 

The 1 in 2^40 is just laughable. With statsitics you can show that virtually anything in the real world is highly improbable; what is the probability that all 300 million Americans wore the exact shirt that they are wearing today? - assume each person has 2 different shirts with equal likely probability of being worn, that means the probability of everyone in America wearing the shirt they are wearing today would be 1 in 2^300,000,000. Clearly a probability so low that it can't happen; reality is thus falsified. Of course the biological answer for the eyes would be that each individual is an 'experiment' which would mean that trillions upon trillions of 'experiments' were performed where environmental pressures selected those that could 'see' or 'see better' with reproduction allowing those traits to be kept in the gene pool generation after generation for millions of years.

 

Yet we KNOW (by 100%) that the cause of intelligently designed things is intelligent design, from billions of known examples, meaning the chances of those eyes being designed on purpose is either 100% or something like 99.99999999999999999999999999%, yet because Goku asserts that evolution-did-it, we are supposed to go with the astronomical improbability, that somehow evolution sent 40 kinds of animals eyes for vision, according to their particular, catered needs, all of which they stumbled upon because they needed them. Logically this is akin to believing that because 40 people were all hungry, they all stumbled upon a macdonalds. (like they all stumbled upon eyes, given we are discussing the same feature, so you misunderstood my analogy).

 

They also, ALL of them, also developed eyes in the best place on their heads, another miracle of improbability, for why did these light sensitive spots only occur on their heads? Or did they occur all over and only the head-ones were selected, I mean, how any intelligent human being can entertain such WAFFLE will forever be beyond me, when the explanation is RIGHT THERE - that the intelligent designer simply gave them all eyes according to their need. If it was down to random chance, the light-sensitive patches would occur randomly, wherever they occurred, in at least a few examples. (logically) but to reason circularly is to say, "since they all are in the right place on the head, that means evolution selected them in the right spot" (reasoning in a circle, because it is a posteriori argument. If they had all occurred on the toes, you could say the same thing, such is the magic of circular reasoning.)

 

Of course intelligently designed things are intelligently designed, but you have yet to demonstrate that eyes are intelligently designed in the sense that some mysterious alien or some magical, immortal, anthropomorphic entity drew up a set of blueprints and implanted them into our heads like a geranium in a flower pot. So your 99.99% figure is basically you saying that you are confident in your belief. I don't know about England, but McDonalds are everywhere in America. There's probably a dozen within a 5 mile radius of where I live. So the probability of 40 hungry people stumbling upon McDonalds would not be some improbable event near my location. 

 

Light sensitive patches, at least for animals, probably did have one origin where the subsequent evolution into eyes occurred independently. Where these light sensitive patches/eyes are located on the body is controlled by the Pax-6 genes I mentioned earlier, which as far as I know are present in all animals that have eyes.



#64 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,374 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 17 November 2016 - 02:45 PM

 

 

Goku: According to polling data the vast majority of religious scientists are theistic evolutionists. Of course this doesn't prove anything, but it does strongly speak to evolution's ability to persuade scientists that have no bias in favor of an atheistic paradigm. IOW you can't explain ToE's overwhelming acceptance among scientists due to some non-religious bias.

 

Turkeys voting for Christmas. And why do they vote? Because they are treated well, like the turkeys, "sure you can be a Christian and believe evo", then behind their backs..."we've bagged another useful idiot here, folks!" To believe Darwin did not come up with evolution with the idea to explain life without God, is ridiculous, he even said that if his theory depended on God being a part of it then he would abandon it completely, meaning, "theistic evolution" is against evolution theory even if it is popular, because evolution as an explanation, does not require theism. And your figure isn't born-again Christians, yet again you generalise with, "theism". The percentage of serious Christians that are evo are few. If you watch Christian tv very seldom do the Christians that are on those shows, accept evolution.

 

But I think it's the other way around though. We are not raised theist, not raised Christian to the point of having a born-again experience as Christ taught, and not taught what a real Christian walk with God is all about. Really I had to listen and do bible studies and listen to Christians on Tv for an awfully long time before I really knew what it was all about. A famous english pastor called David Pawson once said, "it took me about 7 years to be born again". So I think, "theistic evolutionists" that are raised catholic or secular but are semi-aware of Churchianity, or have some Christian connection, are really evolutionist-theists. I think primarily, people are raised and taught evolution, then because they are told it is a fact, when they formulate some VERSION of Christianity we may call "wishy washy theism" ;) they then accommodate and bend that theism to fit with the evolution they have been raised to think is factual. So the majority of evolutionists being theist? To be honest I think it more likely that the majority of evolutionists are theist, because they are first and foremost evolutionist.

 

You place a great deal of emphasis on this statistic I have noticed. So then what is really happening, what does the statistic really mean? I think it means that probably people accept that if they want to believe in God they somehow have to marry evolution and God. Most people believe that can't be avoided. Most people of average intelligence, of average study, don't really dig deep into these issues to the extent we do. People like us that discuss these things inside out every week, in a sense we are fanatical, so then when you take the "majority" of people you have to ask the question; "what does the majority represent?"

 

Does the majority represent the portion of the most informed individuals, for example?

 

 

 

Goku: The 1 in 2^40 is just laughable. With statsitics you can show that virtually anything in the real world is highly improbable; what is the probability that all 300 million Americans wore the exact shirt that they are wearing today? 

 

1 in 1.

 

Of course the "probability" of  life evolving eyes separately 40 times, can't be compared to your example, because we already know the outcome posteriori. Therefore to say evolution is 1 in 1 is begging-the-question fallacy, because it GRANTS evolution that which you are supposed to be proving. So then, obviously my 1 in 240 example is laughable, only because of the 1 in 2 figure. Realistically, the chances of evolution just happening upon all of the types of correct materials and contingency plans and parts of the eye, even once would be a large figure, and that doesn't deal with whether it is physically feasible because of problems such as error-catastrophe, from genetic rust.

 

 

 

Goku: Of course the biological answer for the eyes would be that each individual is an 'experiment' which would mean that trillions upon trillions of 'experiments' were performed where environmental pressures selected those that could 'see' or 'see better' with reproduction allowing those traits to be kept in the gene pool generation after generation for millions of years.

 

Exactly. An absolute logical shambles of an argument, depending upon fictional elements and the magic invisibility of time you say happened. There aren't any transitionals for them, they are conspicuously absent. You ask me to believe in millions of experiments which have no evidence. Basically you are tacitly admitting that you believe these eyes evolved, by faith in the evolution-story.

 

 

 

Goku: Of course intelligently designed things are intelligently designed, but you have yet to demonstrate that eyes are intelligently designed in the sense that some mysterious alien or some magical, immortal, anthropomorphic entity drew up a set of blueprints and implanted them into our heads like a geranium in a flower pot

 

Red-herring. I don't have to do that to show design. All I have to do is show that the object-in-question has all of the usual features of intelligent design. I don't have to provide bluprints for the anitkythera mechanism or some odd object I find in an old loft, if it has the features of design, then it's a contradiction to say it wasn't designed.

 

 

 

Goku: Light sensitive patches, at least for animals, probably did have one origin where the subsequent evolution into eyes occurred independently. Where these light sensitive patches/eyes are located on the body is controlled by the Pax-6 genes I mentioned earlier, which as far as I know are present in all animals that have eyes.

 

What do you mean animals "probably did" have one origin of light patches. I assume you mean one common ancestor gave rise to "light patches" and a whole host of animal kinds then kept them, and after millions of years or diversification, then they all developed eyes where the patches went? Oh that's plausible, I can also see right now as we speak, thousands of species with ear holes but no ears, all waiting for their ears to come along.

 

Can't you see with your considerable intelligence you seem to suppress on evolution's behalf, that this is all a story. Where are these light-patch species in the fossils? I am afraid that even the trilobites had compound eyes exquisitely preserved in the cambrian with 50% chitin, 50% calcite lenses, which are one of the most sophisticated designs of eye. "Probably did" isn't good enough, intellectually, for me, because that just means, "I believe it happened that way", but the scenario is absurd, when all of the evidence shows completed and sophisticated, intelligently designed eyes. 

 

It seems like a game, where you have two magic tricks. If it can't be divergence you say, "convergence", now when I say, "can't be convergence or they would all have light patches randomly spread on their bodies", you then switch back to "divergence". Seems to me that is a rigged game, where you simply believe one or the other.

 

So we have convergent eyeballs, and divergent light-patches? 

 

"Mr policeman, I am telling you, I was both in China and America when it happened. I got on the plane in China, then four minutes later I was in America."

 

In this example, time is the hero of the plot. With evolution time is also the hero of the plot, you can invent as much as you want of it, then invent grandiose numbers of none-existent species for your evolution to happen within that time, all hidden by "gaps" in the fossil record.

 

"Mike, I'll have a sandwich a coffee and a bagel". 

mike; "no worries, I have the sandwich right here, under my table cloth, but I can't show you it, the coffee is in my pocket, I promise, and the bagel is in that bag on my hip but you'll have to trust me because I can't serve your food right now."

 

 

 

Goku: Science uses logic all the time; it is one of science's tools

 

Then that must mean scientists acknowledge that a handful of transitionals, appealing to them and blabbing about them, is logically a case of slothful induction fallacy, since 99.9999% are missing.

 

That's an example of reductio-ad-absurdum;

 

"If the scientists knew their logic, they would conclude that the majority of the evidence is non-evolutionary, pertaining to transitionals, to avoid slothful induction."

 

"They clearly don't acknowledge this, and are clearly not even aware of the error, therefore they do not heed logic."

 

Sorry Goku but the evolutionary scientists haven't heard of slothful induction. If you want me to, I can contact evolutionary scientists and play-act, like Sherlock Holmes, by disguising my motives, and ask them if they have heard of the fallacy. I predict 90% of them would not have even heard of it or if they have, don't fully understand what it means. They are not required to understand logical notation as part of their science, and part of studying evolution.

 

Is it fair that you would consider I am not qualified to discuss which reasoning is sound, when they are not qualified to either? Remember, if you have a qualified evolution-scientist, logically that only proves they have studied biological evolution. It doesn't prove they have studied logical notation to my level, and have an understanding on my level. The evidence suggests they tend to bolster the few transitionals, without even being aware that the conspicuously absent transitionals would fill 1,000 time more museums. Logically, this is inescapable, intellectually, for you MUST commit intellectual suicide to ignore the vast majority of the evidence. Just because that evidence is not tangible, doesn't mean it does not exist. The non-existence of pre-bat transitions, or pre-dragon fly transitions, or pre-pterosaur transitions, or pre-seahorses, etc....vastly SWAMPS all of the tenuous, circumstantial "candidates" they argue are transitionals.

 

If they are logical, they have to admit that evolution's almost total absence, means you must argue slothful induction in order to infer evolution from all of the non-evolution we see.

 

 

 

Goku: I don't deny that Sudoku requires logical thinking to solve, and your ability to do them well along with other logic-type puzzles means that you have an innate ability in those areas. However, evaluating academic theories is often more nuanced, deals with more variables, and requires general and specific knowledge in that subject

 

All that matters is that I show the logical errors in the reasoning used to infer evolution, which I am able to do. If I am not arguing against the technical minutia, that minutia won't prove evolution anyway. The very best technical argument for evolution, that surely seems to only lead to an evolutionary conclusion, would not be consequential BECAUSE of affirmation-of-the-consequent, meaning even if I don't know all of the technical hypothetics, that is not required to falsify evolution. I need to understand what falsifies evolution, logically. I do know. Pretending I need to know more, is just an assertion of personal incredulity. Naturally you think it too hard for me to achieve it. That shows ignorance of the logic of evolution Goku, because if you understood the logic you would realise it is not really all that hard to fault evolution as a theory. So I can't accept your blind faith in evo and blind faith in science-authority, as being superior to me. Even if they did know something I don't, I could study it and then refute the reasons they give for why it must mean evolution. If they can, I can. Fundamentally, this is the key to intelligence I found - the belief that your own mind can think what any other human mind can think. Thus the real answer is determination. I find that the evolutionary scientists are passionless. This gives me an edge, because I have fire in my bones, and that fire compels me to victory because I believe God can make me wiser than them because why would He give wisdom to the fools that say He did not create that which He so very evidently did create?

 

Obviously I can't convince you of my ability to refute evolution because the power the epithet has over your mind. (brainwashing since youth). That's fine, we can move on now. I accept that you don't believe me. I accept that it would be impossible to convince you unless you saw the great debate for yourself and even then you must understand WHY the technical logic can't be broken. I actually wouldn't mind doing a great debate with a top PHD scientist on a forum like this. But the problem is that it's hard for me to find a neutral referee that understands WHY the things I say are correct. To understand why the things I say are technically correct, it can be difficult to understand/convey, because intuition is very different to putting that intuition/ability, into words.

 

I see the correctness in my mind but I can't convey it to other people.

 

Usually because people have to understand things on their own level, they tend to indulge cognitive dissonance. if they can't/won't think like me, it is much, much easier for them to understand the belief that I must simply be wrong, than it is to do the homework in order to realise I am correct. Unfortunately, technical logic is not an easy subject because it's not enough to learn it you also have to have the ability to dissect arguments/claims. That can't be taught, and where the ability is absent, it is much easier for the individual to simply conclude I am not correct and am simply stating that I am correct.

 

That's why I shown you the puzzle, because it is much easier to convince someone by demonstration. I thought if you saw I had beaten 13000 attempts that you might see that my ability was true. You have to have the same ability to understand why I am correct in my arguments. So then, if an evolutionary scientist can match my score, that is at least an indication he may be able to understand my arguments.

 

Your sole focus has been on understanding evolution, in a court-of-great-debate. But my counter-arguments also have to be understood, and it is clear that I am the inventor of them, and I am the one who has figured out why they are correct. So your focus is a bit of a decoy, because you have to prove the evolutionary scientists are able to deduce because my arguments require it, by showing by demonstration they have the same abilities. Thus I can equally conclude that they do not qualify to refute my counter-arguments, in a fair court, with two sides of debate, where claims are made on both sides. They cannot, I believe, refute my counter-evolutionary arguments, and will flounder I would predict, by muddying-the-water, appealing to science, and all of the other unintelligent TRICKS people convince themselves hold great credence, having never put them through the fallacy-filter.

 

:acigar:



#65 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,374 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 17 November 2016 - 03:11 PM

Think I've spent enough time on this one Goku. No offence but your posts do tend to grow ever larger to the point where it can be hard to address the many issues.

 

I am just not convinced that evolution has any credence. It seems the creation is something so overtly under my nose each day, that to be honest evolution is actually so beyond my thinking at this time of my life that it really just isn't part of reality to me.



#66 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 936 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 18 November 2016 - 02:16 AM

I meant that epithelial cells line internal organs like your intestines. Yes I know skin is an organ.
 

You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Epithelium

 

"Epithelial tissues line the cavities and surfaces of blood vessels and organs throughout the body."

 

 

I don't know how you got "all 10 of them evolved at the same time in one generation" from "this was done over many intermediate organisms where each organ underwent many stages itself and it wasn't a fully modern human stomach with no brain or lungs developing first."

 

The hydra is an example of an organism with a stomach but no brain, falsifying your claim that you need a brain to have a stomach. I am not saying a hydra evolved into a human; it is an example falsifying your claim. Irreducible complexity is a bad argument because it doesn't take into account the evolutionary process, or does so only on a surface level that resembles a caricature.

 

If you're looking for a human without a brain or stomach as an intermediate, then you simply have a fundamentally flawed view of how evolution works.

 

 

The difference between a watch and a living organism is that living organisms reproduce; decent with modification coupled with differential reproduction. Also DNA would not have been the first molecule of inheritance.

 

Did you know that the concept of IC did not originate with Behe or any creationist/ID movement? It was originally proposed a few generations ago as a consequence of evolution and they called it interlocking complexity. It has to do with the origination of new structures and then evolving them to make these structures necessary in some way for survival. Take lungs for example. Our lungs evolved from swim bladders in fish. As we know swim bladders help control buoyancy; IOW it reduced the energy need for fish that want to maintain certain depths without expending extra energy through muscles. This organ is not necessary, but beneficial to survival so it was kept. As time went on this organ was modified and allowed some fish to live on land for short periods of time - think lung fish. As we moved more towards the land in our evolutionary development our primitive lungs became stronger and our gills became obsolete. This eventually resulted in our loss of gills and relying exclusively on our lungs for oxygen absorption, which is necessary for human life.

"The hydra is an example of an organism with a stomach but no brain, falsifying your claim that you need a brain to have a stomach. I am not saying a hydra evolved into a human; it is an example falsifying your claim. Irreducible complexity is a bad argument because it doesn't take into account the evolutionary process, or does so only on a surface level that resembles a caricature."

 

Nice Bait and Switch, I was asking how can you possibly believe that the HUMAN body is NOT Irreducibly complex?  Take away just ONE of man's 10 Vital interdependent organs and we die and go extinct... and you want me to believe that ALL 10 OF THEM EVOLVED AT THE SAME TIME IN ONE GENERATION??

 

" I am not saying a hydra evolved into a human"

 

Then WHY would you bring it into the conversation??

 

"If you're looking for a human without a brain or stomach as an intermediate, then you simply have a fundamentally flawed view of how evolution works."

 

I see, so now it is because I "Don't understand evolution" LOL.. Just Because you CANT give a plausible or conceivable pathway or Scenario for MANS 10 INTERDEPENDENT ORGANS!!  Which came first?? Second? Third? Fourth?  ETC..  Are you saying that Mans "Ancestor" Didn't need all Ten??? Which ones could he live WITHOUT???

This is going to be Good... I just Know it!!  Lets hear it !!

 

 

"Did you know that the concept of IC did not originate with Behe or any creationist/ID movement?"

 

It matters not where it "Originated"  The problem is, It renders Mindless MYO Mud to Man Evolution IMPOSSIBLE!

 

"As time went on this organ was modified and allowed some fish to live on land for short periods of time - think lung fish."

 

You are writing a science fiction novel about long ago and far away with that sentence..  you have LEFT Science and you should know that..

BTW, a lung fish, IS, Has ALWAYS Been and will ALWAYS Be a Lung fish, and you have ZERO Evidence to show otherwise.. and you should know that too..



#67 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,049 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 18 November 2016 - 01:26 PM

Turkeys voting for Christmas. And why do they vote? Because they are treated well, like the turkeys, "sure you can be a Christian and believe evo", then behind their backs..."we've bagged another useful idiot here, folks!" To believe Darwin did not come up with evolution with the idea to explain life without God, is ridiculous, he even said that if his theory depended on God being a part of it then he would abandon it completely, meaning, "theistic evolution" is against evolution theory even if it is popular, because evolution as an explanation, does not require theism. And your figure isn't born-again Christians, yet again you generalise with, "theism". The percentage of serious Christians that are evo are few. If you watch Christian tv very seldom do the Christians that are on those shows, accept evolution.

 

But I think it's the other way around though. We are not raised theist, not raised Christian to the point of having a born-again experience as Christ taught, and not taught what a real Christian walk with God is all about. Really I had to listen and do bible studies and listen to Christians on Tv for an awfully long time before I really knew what it was all about. A famous english pastor called David Pawson once said, "it took me about 7 years to be born again". So I think, "theistic evolutionists" that are raised catholic or secular but are semi-aware of Churchianity, or have some Christian connection, are really evolutionist-theists. I think primarily, people are raised and taught evolution, then because they are told it is a fact, when they formulate some VERSION of Christianity we may call "wishy washy theism" ;) they then accommodate and bend that theism to fit with the evolution they have been raised to think is factual. So the majority of evolutionists being theist? To be honest I think it more likely that the majority of evolutionists are theist, because they are first and foremost evolutionist.

 

You place a great deal of emphasis on this statistic I have noticed. So then what is really happening, what does the statistic really mean? I think it means that probably people accept that if they want to believe in God they somehow have to marry evolution and God. Most people believe that can't be avoided. Most people of average intelligence, of average study, don't really dig deep into these issues to the extent we do. People like us that discuss these things inside out every week, in a sense we are fanatical, so then when you take the "majority" of people you have to ask the question; "what does the majority represent?"

 

Does the majority represent the portion of the most informed individuals, for example?

 

So you moved the goal post from "non religious" to "not born again Christian"? If you want to say that the scientific community is biased against a specific religious ideology known as YEC, then how much more so would adherents of this specific religious ideology be biased against the scientific community? Why does my side despite having a healthy mix of atheists, agnostics, and various theistic beliefs, apparently has a significant religious bias that needs to be addressed while your side, which has an extremely single-minded view of religion, doesn't have a religious bias worth mentioning?

 

Evolutionary theory is against God insomuch as all of science cannot entertain miracles or God as an explanation. If a specific religious doctrine is in conflict with scientific understanding then that's a sad day for said doctrine, but I would say that the onus is on the religious adherents to work it out within their own paradigm and not the job science or the scientists to coddle religious doctrine that goes against the science. I honestly don't know much about Darwin's personal views, although I would advise caution if you got that quote from either a primarily creationist or atheistic source, but ultimately they are irrelevant anyway.

 

I was talking about scientists, not the general public. Among scientists that are religious the vast majority of them accept evolution. In the poll that had the highest percentage of scientists that rejected evolution that I've ever seen, they had creationists at 5% and theistic evolutionists at 40%, or almost 90% of religious scientists accept evolution according to the most creationist friendly poll among scientists that I have ever seen. This clearly demonstrates that you can't explain the acceptance of evolution as an atheistic bias within the scientific community to reject a creator. If you have to resort to 'born again Christians' to make your case, then doesn't that speak to my point last post about creationists having an inherently massive bias against evolution? If you can complain about the scientific community having a bias against a creator, which I demonstrated is bollox anyway, how much more biased is the creationist camp?

 

If you want to talk about people more into the religious aspect than the scientific one, just look up the clergy letter project (clergy supporting evolution) versus the creation letter project (clergy that reject evolution), and you will see a huge difference in the number of signatures. Of course this isn't a scientific poll, but considering how hot the topic has been for the past decade or so I think the vast difference in numbers can't be easily brushed aside. Sure you can say 'they aren't true Christians', but again that would seem to validate my point of creationism being a branch of apologetics for a specific religious doctrine and to the clear bias of the creationist movement.

 

I placed a great deal on the statistic because you made the claim that the scientific community is inherently biased against a creator due their "non religious" motivations. I thought that the easiest and most direct way to challenge that assertion would be to look at the religious beliefs of the scientific community regarding 'religious' versus 'non religious' and what the religious scientists think about evolution. How else should I have evaluated your claim?

 

1 in 1.

 

Of course the "probability" of  life evolving eyes separately 40 times, can't be compared to your example, because we already know the outcome posteriori. Therefore to say evolution is 1 in 1 is begging-the-question fallacy, because it GRANTS evolution that which you are supposed to be proving. So then, obviously my 1 in 240 example is laughable, only because of the 1 in 2 figure. Realistically, the chances of evolution just happening upon all of the types of correct materials and contingency plans and parts of the eye, even once would be a large figure, and that doesn't deal with whether it is physically feasible because of problems such as error-catastrophe, from genetic rust.

 

I never said the probability is 1, although you are correct that given evolution is true the probability that evolution generated an eye (multiple times) is 1 since it would have happened. My point was that your 1 in 2^40 figure is a misapplication of statistics. The probability that everyone in England, or America, or name any country you wish, wore the shirt they did today has an even higher unlikelihood of occurring (if you calculate the probability before the event). I agree the probability of an eye just randomly forming is virtually zero, but evolution is fundamentally not random in the way you are portraying it. Once you get a light sensitive patch on an organism the rest is fairly straight forward as improvements are kept and errors are culled.

 

Exactly. An absolute logical shambles of an argument, depending upon fictional elements and the magic invisibility of time you say happened. There aren't any transitionals for them, they are conspicuously absent. You ask me to believe in millions of experiments which have no evidence. Basically you are tacitly admitting that you believe these eyes evolved, by faith in the evolution-story.

 

That the Earth, and life, is old is extremely well established science. Leaving aside that you don't think there is physical evidence for such an occurrence, what is the logical error in saying that many organisms over many generations undergoing descent with modification coupled with differential reproduction can overcome unlikely odds of developing complex structures?

 

Here is an abstract looking at how quickly eyes can develop, and they found with selection pressures continually favoring better eyes, even with a pessimistic view of the time for each step it would only take a few hundred thousand years to go from a light sensitive patch to a focused lens eye.   http://rspb.royalsoc...ent/256/1345/53 

 

Red-herring. I don't have to do that to show design. All I have to do is show that the object-in-question has all of the usual features of intelligent design. I don't have to provide bluprints for the anitkythera mechanism or some odd object I find in an old loft, if it has the features of design, then it's a contradiction to say it wasn't designed.

 

Yet we know we can get such 'intelligently designed features' through a process of descent with modification coupled with differential reproduction (aka evolution) as seen in genetic algorithms producing solutions more complex than human designers. That life has complex structures and intelligent designers are known to make complex structures, therefore life is intelligently designed by a conscious creator is a hasty generalization fallacy.

 

What do you mean animals "probably did" have one origin of light patches. I assume you mean one common ancestor gave rise to "light patches" and a whole host of animal kinds then kept them, and after millions of years or diversification, then they all developed eyes where the patches went? Oh that's plausible, I can also see right now as we speak, thousands of species with ear holes but no ears, all waiting for their ears to come along.

 

Can't you see with your considerable intelligence you seem to suppress on evolution's behalf, that this is all a story. Where are these light-patch species in the fossils? I am afraid that even the trilobites had compound eyes exquisitely preserved in the cambrian with 50% chitin, 50% calcite lenses, which are one of the most sophisticated designs of eye. "Probably did" isn't good enough, intellectually, for me, because that just means, "I believe it happened that way", but the scenario is absurd, when all of the evidence shows completed and sophisticated, intelligently designed eyes. 

 

It seems like a game, where you have two magic tricks. If it can't be divergence you say, "convergence", now when I say, "can't be convergence or they would all have light patches randomly spread on their bodies", you then switch back to "divergence". Seems to me that is a rigged game, where you simply believe one or the other.

 

So we have convergent eyeballs, and divergent light-patches? 

 

"Mr policeman, I am telling you, I was both in China and America when it happened. I got on the plane in China, then four minutes later I was in America."

 

In this example, time is the hero of the plot. With evolution time is also the hero of the plot, you can invent as much as you want of it, then invent grandiose numbers of none-existent species for your evolution to happen within that time, all hidden by "gaps" in the fossil record.

 

"Mike, I'll have a sandwich a coffee and a bagel". 

mike; "no worries, I have the sandwich right here, under my table cloth, but I can't show you it, the coffee is in my pocket, I promise, and the bagel is in that bag on my hip but you'll have to trust me because I can't serve your food right now."

 

Trilobites are one organism (or class of organisms), and a branch that went extinct. Again you are making a hasty generalization fallacy where you are saying since trilobites have complex eyes therefore no other organism at the time or prior to the Cambrian could have had simpler eyes. Eyes being soft parts of the body tend to not preserve well in the fossil record, so finding a fossilized eyespot would be rather difficult. We can use modern organisms as analogues though. The single celled euglena has an eyespot organelle, the flatworm has a multi-cell eyespot, and the patella (snail) has a pit eye, and so on and so forth. Your assertion that all eyes are "completed and sophisticated" in the sense of trilobite eyes or human eyes is not even true of extant species.

 

Only your logic can call a simple clarification a "game".

 

By "probably" I mean I don't know the answer off the top of my head, I'm not even sure there is a scientific consensus on the matter, so rather than assert something I don't know with certainty I qualified it with "probably".

 

Then that must mean scientists acknowledge that a handful of transitionals, appealing to them and blabbing about them, is logically a case of slothful induction fallacy, since 99.9999% are missing.

 

That's an example of reductio-ad-absurdum;

 

"If the scientists knew their logic, they would conclude that the majority of the evidence is non-evolutionary, pertaining to transitionals, to avoid slothful induction."

 

"They clearly don't acknowledge this, and are clearly not even aware of the error, therefore they do not heed logic."

 

Sorry Goku but the evolutionary scientists haven't heard of slothful induction. If you want me to, I can contact evolutionary scientists and play-act, like Sherlock Holmes, by disguising my motives, and ask them if they have heard of the fallacy. I predict 90% of them would not have even heard of it or if they have, don't fully understand what it means. They are not required to understand logical notation as part of their science, and part of studying evolution.

 

Is it fair that you would consider I am not qualified to discuss which reasoning is sound, when they are not qualified to either? Remember, if you have a qualified evolution-scientist, logically that only proves they have studied biological evolution. It doesn't prove they have studied logical notation to my level, and have an understanding on my level. The evidence suggests they tend to bolster the few transitionals, without even being aware that the conspicuously absent transitionals would fill 1,000 time more museums. Logically, this is inescapable, intellectually, for you MUST commit intellectual suicide to ignore the vast majority of the evidence. Just because that evidence is not tangible, doesn't mean it does not exist. The non-existence of pre-bat transitions, or pre-dragon fly transitions, or pre-pterosaur transitions, or pre-seahorses, etc....vastly SWAMPS all of the tenuous, circumstantial "candidates" they argue are transitionals.

 

If they are logical, they have to admit that evolution's almost total absence, means you must argue slothful induction in order to infer evolution from all of the non-evolution we see.

 

:get_a_clue:

 

Do I really need to tell you how rare fossilization is? There are always going to be gaps, but we've found enough transitionals to validate the theory, especially with all the other evidence and understanding we have. Just think about it, only a few organisms ever get a chance to be preserved as fossils, and then we have to find them. That you expect scientists to have found or will find 99% of all transitionals either means you don't know what you're talking about or you have been blinded by your biases. Despite that we will never find all extinct species we have found many transitionals. I would list a few of them but I'm sure you have heard them before. I will say that Tiktaalik is a great example of scientists predicting the find, going to a specific location corresponding to a specific geological time, and finding it. So not only was Tiktaalik a great find in of itself, but it was also successfully predicted in the correct geological era using evolutionary theory.

 

Ironically I would say that demanding that 99.9999% of all lineages must have known transitionals in order to validate ToE is a slothful induction itself that also ignores the fossilization process.

 

All that matters is that I show the logical errors in the reasoning used to infer evolution, which I am able to do. If I am not arguing against the technical minutia, that minutia won't prove evolution anyway. The very best technical argument for evolution, that surely seems to only lead to an evolutionary conclusion, would not be consequential BECAUSE of affirmation-of-the-consequent, meaning even if I don't know all of the technical hypothetics, that is not required to falsify evolution. I need to understand what falsifies evolution, logically. I do know. Pretending I need to know more, is just an assertion of personal incredulity. Naturally you think it too hard for me to achieve it. That shows ignorance of the logic of evolution Goku, because if you understood the logic you would realise it is not really all that hard to fault evolution as a theory. So I can't accept your blind faith in evo and blind faith in science-authority, as being superior to me. Even if they did know something I don't, I could study it and then refute the reasons they give for why it must mean evolution. If they can, I can. Fundamentally, this is the key to intelligence I found - the belief that your own mind can think what any other human mind can think. Thus the real answer is determination. I find that the evolutionary scientists are passionless. This gives me an edge, because I have fire in my bones, and that fire compels me to victory because I believe God can make me wiser than them because why would He give wisdom to the fools that say He did not create that which He so very evidently did create?

 

Obviously I can't convince you of my ability to refute evolution because the power the epithet has over your mind. (brainwashing since youth). That's fine, we can move on now. I accept that you don't believe me. I accept that it would be impossible to convince you unless you saw the great debate for yourself and even then you must understand WHY the technical logic can't be broken. I actually wouldn't mind doing a great debate with a top PHD scientist on a forum like this. But the problem is that it's hard for me to find a neutral referee that understands WHY the things I say are correct. To understand why the things I say are technically correct, it can be difficult to understand/convey, because intuition is very different to putting that intuition/ability, into words.

 

I see the correctness in my mind but I can't convey it to other people.

 

Usually because people have to understand things on their own level, they tend to indulge cognitive dissonance. if they can't/won't think like me, it is much, much easier for them to understand the belief that I must simply be wrong, than it is to do the homework in order to realise I am correct. Unfortunately, technical logic is not an easy subject because it's not enough to learn it you also have to have the ability to dissect arguments/claims. That can't be taught, and where the ability is absent, it is much easier for the individual to simply conclude I am not correct and am simply stating that I am correct.

 

That's why I shown you the puzzle, because it is much easier to convince someone by demonstration. I thought if you saw I had beaten 13000 attempts that you might see that my ability was true. You have to have the same ability to understand why I am correct in my arguments. So then, if an evolutionary scientist can match my score, that is at least an indication he may be able to understand my arguments.

 

Your sole focus has been on understanding evolution, in a court-of-great-debate. But my counter-arguments also have to be understood, and it is clear that I am the inventor of them, and I am the one who has figured out why they are correct. So your focus is a bit of a decoy, because you have to prove the evolutionary scientists are able to deduce because my arguments require it, by showing by demonstration they have the same abilities. Thus I can equally conclude that they do not qualify to refute my counter-arguments, in a fair court, with two sides of debate, where claims are made on both sides. They cannot, I believe, refute my counter-evolutionary arguments, and will flounder I would predict, by muddying-the-water, appealing to science, and all of the other unintelligent TRICKS people convince themselves hold great credence, having never put them through the fallacy-filter.

 

:acigar:

 

 

But you don't really show any logical errors in ToE at all. I know you know that arguments from authority are not logically sound. Your Sudoku argument just doesn't demonstrate that your logical arguments regarding ToE are sound. I don't need to know your Sudoku score; it is irrelevant; I see your arguments against ToE and they are either poorly constructed or missing crucial information that renders them moot. And if I can tell they are bad arguments then a top-tier scientist that is familiar with creationist/ID rhetoric, especially if the exchange was on a written forum over a period of time, will honestly destroy you. Real life is more nuanced and complicated than a straight forward logic puzzle that can be solved with brute force.

 

I believe I do understand your arguments perfectly well, however I think they have major flaws. Asserting that they are correct ad nauseam, and that people need to be on your level to understand them as indicated by a Sudoku score, is not a convincing response to someone disagreeing with you regarding biological evolution. Why can't people demonstrate that they understand your arguments by conversing with you on those topics, rather than bringing up some Sudoku score?







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: religion, atheism, christianity, secular

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users