Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Only if you first presume a designer.When you look at life animals and humans it is very easy to detect design .
No. Having first presumed a designer, calling that "evidence" is question-begging.that is evidence of a designer.
But let's just allow the fallacy to slide for a moment ... the only "designers" we have verifiable evidence of are human beings. The only "designers" we can legitimately propose (you know, without just imagining one for the purpose) are human beings. If we understand that the only "designers" we have evidence of could not have designed everything, then we must look elsewhere.
If we look, and we see natural causes for effects, but see no (other) designers about designing things, then the evidence and valid logic leads to a conclusion that the effects we see are the result of the natural causes we see. Making up some designer that has no other explanation than "that's what we believe", is not logically or evidentially valid.
Just to remind you, I'm not saying that this "proves" there is no Creator, I'm not saying that there is no Creator, I'm just saying there's no verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to honestly propose, let alone defend, the notion that there is a Creator.
Savvy?
What evidence?So how would you explain evidence that shows that intelligence was required to create something ?
Or are you speaking hypothetically?
i'll reintegrate ,you seem to be slow on the uptake.YOUR belife IS your proof.you ask, I gave you the most honest answer.
if you don't like the result ,don't ask.
since when is fact hateful?
no you did not ,it's implied .
as i SAID, you believe and that's all the proof you need.
but then again belief only proves belief.
it does not and can not prove the existence of the thing believed in.
it takes evidence for that.
Did I ask? I don't remember.
Anyway, I reiterate. I don't need proof, and I never said faith was proof.
Moron.
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.
The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So you are not sure who we are descended from.
That's not what I said. Try again please.
The ol fossil tree again,someone putting a puzzle to gether in a back room. First you need to prove we descended from apelike creatures. That we have a common ancestor with the chimp.
These are inferred beliefs from your presuppositions not from the evidence.
What your side has done is found crossbreeding ape fossils and tried to build a tree that we humans came from. Saying we share a common ancestor is rediculous. You're saying we had to cross breed and there is no evidence of that.
There definitely is no evidence of gradualism that over time beneficial mutations spread through the population making us what we are today.
These beliefs are merely Inferences of the mind not evidence so it falls under the faith category.
Presented as if I didn't address this, so ... ?Only if you first presume a designer.When you look at life animals and humans it is very easy to detect design .
No. Having first presumed a designer, calling that "evidence" is question-begging.
But let's just allow the fallacy to slide for a moment ... the only "designers" we have verifiable evidence of are human beings. The only "designers" we can legitimately propose (you know, without just imagining one for the purpose) are human beings. If we understand that the only "designers" we have evidence of could not have designed everything, then we must look elsewhere.
If we look, and we see natural causes for effects, but see no (other) designers about designing things, then the evidence and valid logic leads to a conclusion that the effects we see are the result of the natural causes we see. Making up some designer that has no other explanation than "that's what we believe", is not logically or evidentially valid.
Just to remind you, I'm not saying that this "proves" there is no Creator, I'm not saying that there is no Creator, I'm just saying there's no verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to honestly propose, let alone defend, the notion that there is a Creator.
Savvy?
What evidence?So how would you explain evidence that shows that intelligence was required to create something ?
Or are you speaking hypothetically?
Yeah house,medicine,car,telephone,computer,launguages, and they were all designed by the brain.
I'll just bet you find these beliefs you say I have very convenient.But the brain was not designed or programmed by intelligence according to your beliefs.
Contradictory to what?That does not sound contradictory to you ?
Your question has Texas Sharpshooting and question-begging premises.Everything in the body serves a purpose how is that not evidence for design ?
That's not what I said. Try again please.
The ol fossil tree again,someone putting a puzzle to gether in a back room. First you need to prove we descended from apelike creatures. That we have a common ancestor with the chimp.
Which we have. We've used molecular evidence to prove it.
See above. Keep in mind, you've never offered anything in the way of scientific evidence otherwise, or even a reply that actually addresses what my original posts were about.
Crossbreeding is a bullshit theory, and I've swatted it down before when you've said. Please stop continuing to act like it's correct, you're only showing how little you actually understand of genetics and biology.
There definitely is no evidence of gradualism that over time beneficial mutations spread through the population making us what we are today.
You'll find biologists split over gradualism or punctuated equilibrium. But, over time beneficial mutations spreading through a population does in fact happen. We know this occurs, the proof is purely mountainous.
These beliefs are merely Inferences of the mind not evidence so it falls under the faith category.
It's based on hard evidence. Which you've never provided a shred of for creationism. Please stop wasting everyone's time if you're just going to ignore someone every time they present evidence to you.
Presented as if I didn't address this, so ... ?Only if you first presume a designer.
No. Having first presumed a designer, calling that "evidence" is question-begging.
But let's just allow the fallacy to slide for a moment ... the only "designers" we have verifiable evidence of are human beings. The only "designers" we can legitimately propose (you know, without just imagining one for the purpose) are human beings. If we understand that the only "designers" we have evidence of could not have designed everything, then we must look elsewhere.
If we look, and we see natural causes for effects, but see no (other) designers about designing things, then the evidence and valid logic leads to a conclusion that the effects we see are the result of the natural causes we see. Making up some designer that has no other explanation than "that's what we believe", is not logically or evidentially valid.
Just to remind you, I'm not saying that this "proves" there is no Creator, I'm not saying that there is no Creator, I'm just saying there's no verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to honestly propose, let alone defend, the notion that there is a Creator.
Savvy?
What evidence?
Or are you speaking hypothetically?
Yeah house,medicine,car,telephone,computer,launguages, and they were all designed by the brain.
I'll just bet you find these beliefs you say I have very convenient.
Contradictory to what?That does not sound contradictory to you ?
Your question has Texas Sharpshooting and question-begging premises.Everything in the body serves a purpose how is that not evidence for design ?
Presented as if I didn't address this, so ... ?Only if you first presume a designer.
No. Having first presumed a designer, calling that "evidence" is question-begging.
But let's just allow the fallacy to slide for a moment ... the only "designers" we have verifiable evidence of are human beings. The only "designers" we can legitimately propose (you know, without just imagining one for the purpose) are human beings. If we understand that the only "designers" we have evidence of could not have designed everything, then we must look elsewhere.
If we look, and we see natural causes for effects, but see no (other) designers about designing things, then the evidence and valid logic leads to a conclusion that the effects we see are the result of the natural causes we see. Making up some designer that has no other explanation than "that's what we believe", is not logically or evidentially valid.
Just to remind you, I'm not saying that this "proves" there is no Creator, I'm not saying that there is no Creator, I'm just saying there's no verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to honestly propose, let alone defend, the notion that there is a Creator.
Savvy?
What evidence?
Or are you speaking hypothetically?
Yeah house,medicine,car,telephone,computer,launguages, and they were all designed by the brain.
I'll just bet you find these beliefs you say I have very convenient.
Contradictory to what?That does not sound contradictory to you ?
Your question has Texas Sharpshooting and question-begging premises.Everything in the body serves a purpose how is that not evidence for design ?
That's not what I said. Try again please.
The ol fossil tree again,someone putting a puzzle to gether in a back room. First you need to prove we descended from apelike creatures. That we have a common ancestor with the chimp.
Which we have. We've used molecular evidence to prove it.
See above. Keep in mind, you've never offered anything in the way of scientific evidence otherwise, or even a reply that actually addresses what my original posts were about.
Crossbreeding is a bullshit theory, and I've swatted it down before when you've said. Please stop continuing to act like it's correct, you're only showing how little you actually understand of genetics and biology.
There definitely is no evidence of gradualism that over time beneficial mutations spread through the population making us what we are today.
You'll find biologists split over gradualism or punctuated equilibrium. But, over time beneficial mutations spreading through a population does in fact happen. We know this occurs, the proof is purely mountainous.
These beliefs are merely Inferences of the mind not evidence so it falls under the faith category.
It's based on hard evidence. Which you've never provided a shred of for creationism. Please stop wasting everyone's time if you're just going to ignore someone every time they present evidence to you.
It fits perfectly with creation,we believe in microevolution which adds up to microadaptations which brings about variations within a family,not macroevolution that means new family.
Cross breeding and parental traits, i answered this before . I guess it didn't sink in.
You're amazing
How exactly do you propose a mechanism that forces the mutations to keep the organism within a certain set of characteristics?
DNA is just a long sequence of Thymine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Adenine, The order of those determine the proteins expressed. Mutations change one of those to another. That changes the protein express.
If mutations are random how do you exactly expect the organism to just vary?
imagine a bacteria a billion years ago with the DNA sequence "ACGTACGTACGT". In one generation, a single mutation might take place. Maybe the offspring looks like "TCGTACGTACGT". Adenine was replaced with Thymine. It reproduces over and over and small variations begin to build up. after a billion years, how can you guarantee that those random variations have not changed it to something like "TGCATGCATGCA".
And if two organisms have totally dissimilar genomes, how can you possibly consider them the same species
Because animals from the same family have different genetic data does not mean they are no longer from that family why must they be classified as a different species ?
That is why I prefer kind or family as a description. But it the best way to do it is name them by breeds. Do we know the difference between a wolf,coyote,and fox. What's the point of defining a new species when breed pretty much covers it.
How exactly do you propose a mechanism that forces the mutations to keep the organism within a certain set of characteristics?
DNA is just a long sequence of Thymine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Adenine, The order of those determine the proteins expressed. Mutations change one of those to another. That changes the protein express.
If mutations are random how do you exactly expect the organism to just vary?
imagine a bacteria a billion years ago with the DNA sequence "ACGTACGTACGT". In one generation, a single mutation might take place. Maybe the offspring looks like "TCGTACGTACGT". Adenine was replaced with Thymine. It reproduces over and over and small variations begin to build up. after a billion years, how can you guarantee that those random variations have not changed it to something like "TGCATGCATGCA".
And if two organisms have totally dissimilar genomes, how can you possibly consider them the same species
Because animals from the same family have different genetic data does not mean they are no longer from that family why must they be classified as a different species ?
Do you seriously not fucking understand genetics??!?!?!
Every humans genome is over 99% identical....If two genomes are 0% similar, like the ones above, they have to be a different species. they dont even code for the same genes. They code for totally different structures.
Your human analogy is horrible. Every human is 99% identical.
That is why I prefer kind or family as a description. But it the best way to do it is name them by breeds. Do we know the difference between a wolf,coyote,and fox. What's the point of defining a new species when breed pretty much covers it.
"breed" - A breed is a group of domestic animals or plants with a homogeneous appearance, behavior, and other characteristics that distinguish it from other animals or plants of the same species. Despite the centrality of the idea of "breeds" to animal husbandry, there is no scientifically accepted definition of the term.
Because the situation is much more complex than you even understand!
How exactly do you apply that to a bacteria?!?!?!
Creationists always apply the top-down fallacy.
EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE ON A GENETIC LEVEL! The mutation doesnt care what the animal looks like now, its just going to mutate one of those A's, C's, G's, or T's.
And based on your definition of breed, can i ask you a few things? Or maybe make a few assumptions about what you might believe, based on this idea of a breed.
So take the idea of darwins finches. The idea being that they originated on the mainland and spread out to each island. They then diversified, microevolved if u must use that term, independently. That is, the populations on each island would be slightly different because they have no way of "microevolving" together since theyre separated.
Science classifies these birds as different species. I assume you would view this classification as more or less pointless, because the animals are still within the same "breed". correct?
(I feel like you couldnt define breed more accurately and thats why generalized, but ok...)
Am i basically right about the finches though????
Because animals from the same family have different genetic data does not mean they are no longer from that family why must they be classified as a different species ?
Do you seriously not fucking understand genetics??!?!?!
Every humans genome is over 99% identical....If two genomes are 0% similar, like the ones above, they have to be a different species. they dont even code for the same genes. They code for totally different structures.
Your human analogy is horrible. Every human is 99% identical.
That is why I prefer kind or family as a description. But it the best way to do it is name them by breeds. Do we know the difference between a wolf,coyote,and fox. What's the point of defining a new species when breed pretty much covers it.
"breed" - A breed is a group of domestic animals or plants with a homogeneous appearance, behavior, and other characteristics that distinguish it from other animals or plants of the same species. Despite the centrality of the idea of "breeds" to animal husbandry, there is no scientifically accepted definition of the term.
Because the situation is much more complex than you even understand!
How exactly do you apply that to a bacteria?!?!?!
Creationists always apply the top-down fallacy.
EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE ON A GENETIC LEVEL! The mutation doesnt care what the animal looks like now, its just going to mutate one of those A's, C's, G's, or T's.
Is this another claim like the claim if a human does not have 46 chromosomes it's not a human ?
So spare me do i understand genetics.
Do you understand kind or breed ?
and genomes are similar because the structures are similar, and DNA is like the hammer with which god constructs the house. So obviously god gave every animal a set of "heart genes", and such, because they need a heart.
This is similar to your belief about the similarity between the genomes of different species, correct?
And based on your definition of breed, can i ask you a few things? Or maybe make a few assumptions about what you might believe, based on this idea of a breed.
So take the idea of darwins finches. The idea being that they originated on the mainland and spread out to each island. They then diversified, microevolved if u must use that term, independently. That is, the populations on each island would be slightly different because they have no way of "microevolving" together since theyre separated.
Science classifies these birds as different species. I assume you would view this classification as more or less pointless, because the animals are still within the same "breed". correct?
(I feel like you couldnt define breed more accurately and thats why generalized, but ok...)
Am i basically right about the finches though????
They are all of the same family and yes there are different breeds of finches. But when the drought was over the shorter beaked finch made a come back because they did not evolve,but simply were being hurt by natural selection because the other finches were better adapted to drought conditions.
