Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution A Proven Fact?


  • Please log in to reply
730 replies to this topic

#721 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,599 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 20 February 2017 - 02:00 PM

I wasn't actually saying scientists are atheists. I was just speaking about atheists that are not scientists, generally.

 

Most debating atheists are people that associate themselves with science because this they think, puts atheism into the, "scientific rationalist" category. They try to argue that a scientific explanation replaces a theistic one.

 

I was just referring to atheists to be honest, and their obsession with all things science, as though only science and materialism and naturalism, is germane. This is not so, for as I explained, intelligent design is factual.

 

As for rain water being pure, that doesn't matter to the drinker of water so much. I was only saying that there is a need to remove the salinity from water before we drink it. People can drink from streams, natural springs and wells, without any salt or any problems, and if there was only salt water, all terrestrial life would have perished. 



#722 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:02 PM

I wasn't actually saying scientists are atheists. I was just speaking about atheists that are not scientists, generally.

i understand.
it's easy to come to the conclusion that science is atheist, but it is comprised of people, just like you and me.
and i have no qualms in saying "i have questioned the existence of god since almost day one".
and i STILL have no answers.
in discussing abiogenesis, are you really going to let evolutionists say "the science god did it"?
no, because you want proof.
where are you going to get that proof?
by people working on the problem trying to figure out how it happened, and trust me, they aren't looking for a god.
they CANNOT rescind the laws of chemistry.
would you allow otherwise?
you simply cannot hold theism and science to the same standards, and then judge them as if you are.

god didn't put that nail in the road so you could run over it, it fell off a construction truck.
OTOH, i find that science is ill equipped to explain things such as instincts or the placebo effect.

Most debating atheists . . .

. . . aren't true scientists.
there isn't a true scientist on this planet that will categorically state "there is no god".

I was just referring to atheists to be honest, and their obsession with all things science, as though only science and materialism and naturalism, is germane. This is not so, for as I explained, intelligent design is factual

careful with your choice of words, intelligent design IS NOT a demonstrated fact.
you don't allow evolutionists to get by with this sort of thing

As for rain water being pure, that doesn't matter to the drinker of water so much. I was only saying that there is a need to remove the salinity from water before we drink it. People can drink from streams, natural springs and wells, without any salt or any problems, and if there was only salt water, all terrestrial life would have perished. 

it should be pointed out that "salt" is used in the chemical sense, NOT as sodium chloride.

#723 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,599 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 February 2017 - 03:59 AM

 

 

What If: careful with your choice of words, intelligent design IS NOT a demonstrated fact.

 

It's not a demonstrated fact that the carburetor in your car is not located inside the headlight, like your eyeball is not located inside your intestine. (specified complexity)? It's not a demonstrated fact that your car tyres are not made of iron, and my teeth aren't made from candy floss? (correct materials). It's not a demonstrated fact that car tyres are created in congruence with road tarmac? It's not a fact that lungs are made in congruence with air? (interactive viability). It's not a fact that when you use your ferrari's code-switch "on" for the lights that the engine doesn't fire? It's not a fact that when DNA codes for a synthase you don't get a two stroke engine? (information code; with code, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics all correctly in place). It's not a fact that if you cut your finger you won't bleed to death? It's not a fact that if it rains you will crash your car because it doesn't have windshield wipers? (contingency planning).

 

Why do I highlight a lifeform with an example of technology? To show that the same factual features of design in a car, are in life.

 

So then to avoid the special pleading fallacy, in regards to intelligent design, if you say something about the car, you must also say it about life.

 

Understanding the special pleading fallacy will instruct you WHY. If you don't get it, here is an example;

 

Bob has a car, with the keys and the registration.

Ken has a car, with the keys and the registration.

 

Their car, keys and registration are identical, that is all the information you have been given and all the data you have.

 

Logically, can you make the following statement?

 

"Bob is the owner of that car but Ken isn't."

 

Another example;

 

A man shoots someone because he doesn't like them. The queen of England shoots someone because she doesn't like them.

 

Can we arrest and imprison the man but let the queen go, "because she is the queen"?

 

If your answers are, "no", then you begin to understand what I mean by "special pleading". For if you have the same facts for each, but treat one differently, then it is a double standard fallacy.

 

I don't talk about these fallacies because I have invented them. We are now dealing in deductive proof.

 

Logic isn't about OPINION. It's about proof. You have deductive proof as long as the premises are certainly true and the conclusion follows.

 

EXAMPLE; three men in a house. We know one is murdered. We know nobody entered the house. We know therefore that either Bob or Ken murdered Popeye. Popeye we KNOW he was murdered in the bathroom, and Bob was recorded on CCTV washing dishes in the kitchen the whole night from an all night super steak out, eat as many as you can. Therefore Ken murdered Joe.

 

As long as the premises are 100% true, it is 100% proven that he is the murderer.

 

CONCLUSION: We know that the features of design in an eyeball are identical in their design, to that of a ferrari. Not identical in what they are, but identical in the features of design they share. For example every part of the car is arranged in a way to fit with other parts and function in congruence with them. It is the same with the eye, the location of the eyes, how it functions as a unit with the brain and ears, for balance, etc..we know the foot is not located on the elbow but in congruence with all the other parts of the body.

 

If you are going to state it is a fact that a car is designed, you must also state it is a fact that life is designed, for we have the same facts. The only difference is one vacuous difference, which is inconsequential - we know the designer of the car, we can locate them or could locate them in the past, and confirm they designed it. 

 

This is a moot point of difference for reasons I won't go into here.

 

It's not a matter of science. The science part is just the available facts of anatomy.

 

Until you start to value logic for it's importance in figuring out all of these things, you will have a vital piece of the formula missing, IMHO.

 

It is a fact life is designed, the only difference is that it is a much superior level of design as proven by the existence of biomimetics, which is a field of study which plagiarises the designs in nature because men can't match those designs. "if you can't beat them, join them."

 

That is to say - they cannot match God's designs so they have to borrow them instead. 

 

ERGO, if the designs in nature are NOT cleverer than man's designs, then it would not follow than man would steal them.

 

(That's an example of Reductio Ad Absurdum, where the modus tollens gives you 100% proof that the design in nature is cleverer than mans, for, "if it was not, man would not borrow from nature."

"man does borrow from nature, therefore it is cleverer". (modus tollens rule obeyed)

 

ERGO, it is factual that life is both designed, and more cleverly designed than man's artificial technology.

 

Do not misunderstand - I am not giving ANY opinions here, nor are any opinions of any worth, intellectually. I am simply expounding logical proof. As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, life is designed, and it doesn't matter if every opinion on the planet disagrees with me, for that does not change something which is deductively provable by the formally sound rules of a syllogistic argument.

 

So this is not something to do with "mike the wiz". No, mike the wiz is merely stating things that are 100% provable.


  • Mike Summers likes this

#724 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 21 February 2017 - 08:31 AM

It's not a demonstrated fact that the carburetor in your car is not located inside the headlight, like your eyeball is not located inside your intestine. (specified complexity)? It's not a demonstrated fact that your car tyres are not made of iron, and my teeth aren't made from candy floss? (correct materials). It's not a demonstrated fact that car tyres are created in congruence with road tarmac? It's not a fact that lungs are made in congruence with air? (interactive viability). It's not a fact that when you use your ferrari's code-switch "on" for the lights that the engine doesn't fire? It's not a fact that when DNA codes for a synthase you don't get a two stroke engine? (information code; with code, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics all correctly in place). It's not a fact that if you cut your finger you won't bleed to death? It's not a fact that if it rains you will crash your car because it doesn't have windshield wipers? (contingency planning).

oh my, have i made the gods angry?

Why do I highlight a lifeform with an example of technology? To show that the same factual features of design in a car, are in life.

and what i'm telling you is, this stuff must conform to natural laws whether it was designed or not.
do you really believe your ferrari is going to defy natural laws and fly you to the moon?
and that's the point when it comes to figuring out how this stuff (genetics) works.
i am concerned though, that some data might be ignored because it might imply design.
my hypothesis about epigenetics and the "restart" scenario for example.

Understanding the special pleading fallacy will instruct you WHY. If you don't get it, here is an example;
 
Bob has a car, with the keys and the registration.
Ken has a car, with the keys and the registration.
 
Their car, keys and registration are identical, that is all the information you have been given and all the data you have.

then i must conclude they own the same car

Logically, can you make the following statement?
 
"Bob is the owner of that car but Ken isn't."

wrong.
if the keys and registrations are identical, then they belong to the same car.
furthermore, if the registrations are indentical, then they belong to the same person.
logically, your example is illogical.

frankly, i'm not into this type of thing, simply because i question whether any of your examples even apply to evolution.

it's the same thing with those gradually fading color charts that evolutionists use to show evolution.
sure, the premise is correct, but the application of it is wrong.

#725 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,266 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:07 AM

While evo scientists want to argue that life is a chemical reaction, I think it is life that animates matter.

When it comes to code it is of no use without a close rlationship with intelligence. I would argue that code and information are seperate things. Books contain code--not informattion. They must be read by intelligent beings (that know how to read (a learned process). \

Observe the letters T-A-H. Now observe the same letters placed in specified order to evoke specific information in our mind. Hat. The reader of the code must be intelligent and agree to evoke the same associated meaning to the code.

My question is what reads the code in the cell? Note that there is the same code in a dead cell than in a live cell (until it degrades) . If Intelligence is required to read the code in a book it would only follow that intelligence is required to read DNA code in the cell.



#726 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,266 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:19 AM

what if said:

if the keys and registrations are identical, then they belong to the same car.
furthermore, if the registrations are indentical, then they belong to the same person.
logically, your example is illogical.

Keys are often finite and can repeat. An intelligent being could mfg two identical cars and key them the same.
Cars can be designed to operate with identical keys.

 



#727 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 21 February 2017 - 09:44 AM

what if said:
Keys are often finite and can repeat. An intelligent being could mfg two identical cars and key them the same.
Cars can be designed to operate with identical keys.

identical registrations belong to the same car, and to the same person.
VIN numbers and social security numbers/addresses are unique.

#728 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,599 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 February 2017 - 10:34 AM

 

 

What If: wrong.
if the keys and registrations are identical, then they belong to the same car.
furthermore, if the registrations are indentical, then they belong to the same person.
logically, your example is illogical.

 

Good grief Bilbo, you are way way out of the ball park.

 

You haven't understood my example at all, I meant one person owns his own car and another person also owns his own car, and they both have the same evidence to show us, we only know they both have a car, both have a registration and both have keys, each person has identical evidence, can you say of one person, "this person is guilty but the other is innocent".

 

You don't "get" the logic yet.

 

Here is an easier example. If one child comes up to you and asks for a sweet and another child does, is it correct to give one child a sweet but not the other if you don't know the children but assert about one of them, "this one doesn't deserve a sweet."

 

The point is it is an example where you have two claims of which the data is identical, meaning logically, you can only treat both of the claims equally. It's a deductive proof, it means that if you say no to one of the children on the basis of the same evidence, you must also say no to the other child, and if you say yes to one child, you must also say yes to the other child.

 

It's called special pleading, where you claim there is a special reason why you can treat one claim differently to the other, even though the evidence you have presented to you for both claims, is identical.

 

 

 

What If: and what i'm telling you is, this stuff must conform to natural laws whether it was designed or not.
do you really believe your ferrari is going to defy natural laws and fly you to the moon?
and that's the point when it comes to figuring out how this stuff (genetics) works.
i am concerned though, that some data might be ignored because it might imply design.
my hypothesis about epigenetics and the "restart" scenario for example.

 

But none of this changes what I said, an eyeball is still constructed to see like a car is constructed to drive. The design is simply there whether you like it or not. You repeat this over and over about natural laws but it doesn't affect whether something is designed or not, a car is still designed even if it does conform.



#729 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,599 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 February 2017 - 10:38 AM

Mike I said "information code" with you in mind, because I acknowledge your delineation about "code" and "information" being separated.

 

You see, your baba friend remembers you in his thoughts!! :)



#730 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,599 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 February 2017 - 11:09 AM

I said, "the owner of that car" when I should have said, "the owner of his car", that probably threw you guys off, sometimes I am sloppy when I am typing fast. I mean that they both had cars.



#731 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 21 February 2017 - 04:57 PM

Good grief Bilbo, you are way way out of the ball park.
 
You haven't understood my example at all,

yes i have.
i can come to the following conclusions about the registration scenario:
2 identical registrations belong to the same person, and the same car.
one of those registrations is either:
issued by the BMV to replaced a "lost" one, or, is a photocopy.

question 1, how does this apply to evolution?
question 2, who is bilbo?

I meant one person owns his own car and another person also owns his own car, and they both have the same evidence to show us, we only know they both have a car, both have a registration and both have keys, each person has identical evidence, can you say of one person, "this person is guilty but the other is innocent".

okay, again how does this apply to evolution?
 

You don't "get" the logic yet.

no, because i have no idea how it applies to evolution.
 

Here is an easier example. If one child comes up to you and asks for a sweet and another child does, is it correct to give one child a sweet but not the other if you don't know the children but assert about one of them, "this one doesn't deserve a sweet." 
The point is it is an example where you have two claims of which the data is identical, meaning logically, you can only treat both of the claims equally.

i have my doubts whether the above is true or not.
as a matter of fact, noble himself blasts this concept out of the water when he said, completely opposite interpretations can be made from the same set of data.

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]But none of this changes what I said, an eyeball is still constructed to see like a car is constructed to drive. The design is simply there whether you like it or not. You repeat this over and over about natural laws but it doesn't affect whether something is designed or not, a car is still designed even if it does conform.

and you somehow think that because it was designed, that it doesn't have to obey natural laws?
you mean, i can actually see sound waves, not the effects, but the actual waves themselves?
i can see radio waves?
i can see atoms with my naked eye?

whether it was designed or not IS IRRELEVANT

well, that's the way it's supposed to be.
like i mentioned before, i'm concerned that data might be ignored, simply because it might imply design.
like my epigenetics and the "restart" scenario, this line of reasoning will most likely never be pursued, simply because there is no known way to ascribe it to "dumb luck"

i think science already has the evidence for design, for the simple fact that it has been unable to recreate the cell.
it isn't because science lacks the tools or the resources, it's the incredible complexity of the cell itself.
maybe someday they will, but that day is far from tomorrow, maybe even very, very, far.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    what if