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.
If you're going to say there's some contradiction in my beliefs (rather than, of course, the strawmen you assign to me), then you have to identify the contradiction.If you can't see the contradiction in your reasoning i can't help you.
Thanks.
I asked you to be intellectually honest. I even provided a link to explain to you where your reasoning went wrong the first time you said this.If you're going to say there's some contradiction in my beliefs (rather than, of course, the strawmen you assign to me), then you have to identify the contradiction.If you can't see the contradiction in your reasoning i can't help you.
Thanks.
Well you know the brain is resposible for science,homes,telephones,medicine,computers,language and every modern day creation.
Why do you believe the brain used intelligence to create all these things,but the brain was not created and programmed through intelligence ?
No. I see that it's your usual intellectual dishonesty.you don't see that view as contradictory ?
No. It's your INVALID reasoning.Simple reasoning.
I asked you to be intellectually honest. I even provided a link to explain to you where your reasoning went wrong the first time you said this.If you're going to say there's some contradiction in my beliefs (rather than, of course, the strawmen you assign to me), then you have to identify the contradiction.
Thanks.
Well you know the brain is resposible for science,homes,telephones,medicine,computers,language and every modern day creation.
Why do you believe the brain used intelligence to create all these things,but the brain was not created and programmed through intelligence ?
Since I never said, or made the argument that "... the brain was not created and programmed through intelligence" I have to wonder why you still insist that I have.
No. I see that it's your usual intellectual dishonesty.you don't see that view as contradictory ?
No. It's your INVALID reasoning.Simple reasoning.
your arugement is specious : spe·cious adj \ˈspē-shəs\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. But the brain was not designed or programmed by intelligence according to your beliefs. That does not sound contradictory to you ?
Everything in the body serves a purpose how is that not evidence for design ?
Definition of SPECIOUS
1obsolete : showy
2: having deceptive attraction or allure
3: having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic <specious reasoning>
spe·cious·ly adverb
spe·cious·ness noun
See specious defined for English-language learners »
See specious defined for kids »
Examples of SPECIOUS
He justified his actions with specious reasoning.
<a specious argument that really does not stand up under close examination>
Forty years ago I was not yet thirty, and my father still held to the hope that I would come to my senses, abandon the practice of journalism, and follow a career in one of the Wall Street money trades. As a young man during the Great Depression he had labored briefly as a city-room reporter for William Randolph Hearst's San Francisco Examiner, and he knew that the game was poorly paid and usually rigged, more often than not a matter of converting specious rumor into dubious fact. Lewis H. Lapham, Harper's, February 2004
you have no evidence of a designer ,your faith in one is not valid evidence.
if A "god" had indeed desiged ours or any brain, such a god would have started from scratch not piled one on top of another as science has proven.
if "god" had created us as the foremost life form on earth then why isn't our brain functionally and structurally very different from our closest relatives the apes?
if "god" was a truly great designer why did "god" intermix a sewer and a playground?
if that's not contradictory nothing is.
the article
Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2
An in-depth look
by Dr. David N. Menton on
May 23, 2007
Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2 - Answers in Genesis
Instead of jumping to conclusions take a look.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_53-57.pdf
in your link is not vaild, it's a rationalization and not science.
your first sentence is a bogus ASSumption.You're not fab?
the second is a lame attempt at sarcasm.
I have said it many times variations and natrual selection. There are variations in every family. Through genetic drift and natural selection has created the diversity we see today.
God created the families but left enough genetic information to allow adaptation and variations. natural selection and genetic drift has created the many differet breeds.
And like ive asked you many many MANY times, what mechanism ensures that genetic variations cant become too great?
DNA barrier and genetic drift i believe they only allow for so much variance.
If an organism goes beyond the limits of adaptation it will die or become weaker.
Genetic drift through selective breeding creates breeds. But genetic drift has also helped in maintaining breeds in the wild. Over time traits are removed from the genepool.
Lions have the genetic data for lions,tigers have genetic data for tigers so on and so on for every breed of organism.
We see evidence of recombination in humans ,that the information didn't go away or was there all along.
That is another reason i don't believe in macro-evolution because who is to say when recombination can happen ?
That is why you can see black parents give birth to a white child and vice versa.
What do you think you can see with a large gene pool like the mutt ? But in smaller groups that is where genetic drift is most powerful in eliminating traits creating breeds.
And like ive asked you many many MANY times, what mechanism ensures that genetic variations cant become too great?
DNA barrier and genetic drift i believe they only allow for so much variance.
1. DNA barrier is a made up term
2. Genetic drift has nothing to do with what mutations can actually take place.
3. I dont care what you believe, id like what you can support with evidence.
Or become stronger. You can make a pretty compelling argument if you just leave out one half of the story...
This idea that traits somehow only get removed from a population is bullshit. Source please, source please!?!?!
Without a doubt, tigers and lions are well over 90% genetically identical. Because they all share common traits, because tigers and lions share a common ancestor. Do you honestly not think adaption could change an organism from a lion to a tiger? Theyre so similar they can interbreed still! They havent been separated long enough to become genetically different enough to not be able to interbreed.
Um what? Your use of the word recombination doesnt even make sense. We dont see "evidence" of recombination, we see the actual process. Sexual recombination takes place in every sex cell.
Where does a loss come in when your discussing recombination?
That is another reason i don't believe in macro-evolution because who is to say when recombination can happen ?
That is why you can see black parents give birth to a white child and vice versa.
Your understanding of what recombination is is so convoluted i cant even follow your logic with this one. No one says when recombination can happen, genetic recombination happens each time your body produces a sex cell like a sperm or an egg....
What do you think you can see with a large gene pool like the mutt ? But in smaller groups that is where genetic drift is most powerful in eliminating traits creating breeds.
"The mutt"
O sorry, i didnt know that when we discussed a mutt we were talking about a specific genepool. I didnt realize there was a specific type of dog called 'mutt'.
What is your point? You never even discuss the central point of evolution!!! When genetic material is copied there are mistakes, maybe adenine turns to cytosine. This is how the function of proteins are altered, at least one of the ways.
Explain to me how there is no situation in which the altered expression of a protein is beneficial. Then explain to me what mechanism prevents these changes from building up.
Thats all you have to do. You have two questions to answer, get to it.
your first sentence is a bogus ASSumption.
the second is a lame attempt at sarcasm.
Are you gonna actually discuss science or hide behind a faulty english lesson ?
Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black huh?
DNA barrier and genetic drift i believe they only allow for so much variance.
1. DNA barrier is a made up term
2. Genetic drift has nothing to do with what mutations can actually take place.
3. I dont care what you believe, id like what you can support with evidence.
Or become stronger. You can make a pretty compelling argument if you just leave out one half of the story...
This idea that traits somehow only get removed from a population is bullshit. Source please, source please!?!?!
Without a doubt, tigers and lions are well over 90% genetically identical. Because they all share common traits, because tigers and lions share a common ancestor. Do you honestly not think adaption could change an organism from a lion to a tiger? Theyre so similar they can interbreed still! They havent been separated long enough to become genetically different enough to not be able to interbreed.
Um what? Your use of the word recombination doesnt even make sense. We dont see "evidence" of recombination, we see the actual process. Sexual recombination takes place in every sex cell.
Where does a loss come in when your discussing recombination?
Your understanding of what recombination is is so convoluted i cant even follow your logic with this one. No one says when recombination can happen, genetic recombination happens each time your body produces a sex cell like a sperm or an egg....
What do you think you can see with a large gene pool like the mutt ? But in smaller groups that is where genetic drift is most powerful in eliminating traits creating breeds.
"The mutt"
O sorry, i didnt know that when we discussed a mutt we were talking about a specific genepool. I didnt realize there was a specific type of dog called 'mutt'.
What is your point? You never even discuss the central point of evolution!!! When genetic material is copied there are mistakes, maybe adenine turns to cytosine. This is how the function of proteins are altered, at least one of the ways.
Explain to me how there is no situation in which the altered expression of a protein is beneficial. Then explain to me what mechanism prevents these changes from building up.
Thats all you have to do. You have two questions to answer, get to it.
DNA Code Barrier
Made up word what do you think horizontal gene transfer is, ?or evolution. The whole science vocabulary was made up
A purebred animal only has the genetic data to produce what they're. Does this have to be explained further ?
You don't know mutts have a larger gene pool ?Why do mutts have larger gene pools ?
Millions of people have welcomed four legged friends into the family, in particular, the cuddly mutt. While a lot can be said for a purebreds beauty and grace, mutts are often healthier overall with fewer temperamental problems. This desirable tendency results from breeding within a larger genetic pool where there are fewer chances for unfavorable genes to overlap. The only real disadvantage of the lovable mutt is not knowing what kind of dog it really is. A dog DNA test can answer this question by revealing the ancestry of a furry friend.
What is a Dog DNA Test?
So why do lions produce lions only ? Why do tigers produce tigers only ? This is such a simple explanation but yet it goes right over your head.
Let me help you one more time.
If each species did not possess only genetic data to produce what they are you would see some funny creatures coming out of mothers. The genetic information gets bred out not in and that is why they can only reproduce what they are.
Firstly, you don't believe that intelligence is a necessary prerequisite for the existence of intelligence. You're going to prove it to everyone else, if not yourself.I asked you to be intellectually honest. I even provided a link to explain to you where your reasoning went wrong the first time you said this.Well you know the brain is resposible for science,homes,telephones,medicine,computers,language and every modern day creation.
Why do you believe the brain used intelligence to create all these things,but the brain was not created and programmed through intelligence ?
Since I never said, or made the argument that "... the brain was not created and programmed through intelligence" I have to wonder why you still insist that I have.
No. I see that it's your usual intellectual dishonesty.
No. It's your INVALID reasoning.Simple reasoning.
How is it invalid for me to believe intelligence creates intelligence explain?
What's invalid in your reasoning, is that your conclusion is unsupported in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. That's what's invalid, precisely.What is invalid reasoning is to think an unintelligent natural process would create an organ that is programmed with the ability to learn and create,
Demonstrate. With verifiable evidence AND valid logic, please.Sorry that takes intelligence.
It obviously comes from the Designer who designed the Designer you keep referencing. Obviously. Right?Where would such information come from if not a designer ?
1. DNA barrier is a made up term
2. Genetic drift has nothing to do with what mutations can actually take place.
3. I dont care what you believe, id like what you can support with evidence.
Or become stronger. You can make a pretty compelling argument if you just leave out one half of the story...
This idea that traits somehow only get removed from a population is bullshit. Source please, source please!?!?!
Without a doubt, tigers and lions are well over 90% genetically identical. Because they all share common traits, because tigers and lions share a common ancestor. Do you honestly not think adaption could change an organism from a lion to a tiger? Theyre so similar they can interbreed still! They havent been separated long enough to become genetically different enough to not be able to interbreed.
Um what? Your use of the word recombination doesnt even make sense. We dont see "evidence" of recombination, we see the actual process. Sexual recombination takes place in every sex cell.
Where does a loss come in when your discussing recombination?
Your understanding of what recombination is is so convoluted i cant even follow your logic with this one. No one says when recombination can happen, genetic recombination happens each time your body produces a sex cell like a sperm or an egg....
"The mutt"
O sorry, i didnt know that when we discussed a mutt we were talking about a specific genepool. I didnt realize there was a specific type of dog called 'mutt'.
What is your point? You never even discuss the central point of evolution!!! When genetic material is copied there are mistakes, maybe adenine turns to cytosine. This is how the function of proteins are altered, at least one of the ways.
Explain to me how there is no situation in which the altered expression of a protein is beneficial. Then explain to me what mechanism prevents these changes from building up.
Thats all you have to do. You have two questions to answer, get to it.
DNA Code Barrier
LMAO The Instution of Origins Education. HAHAHAHAHAH
Except horizonta gene transfer is an actual thing and the DNA code barrier is something that does not exist outside of the institute for origins education.
Obviously the genetic information of an animal only has the information encoded in it. Thats like saying the only things in a book are whats written in it...pretty self explanatory.
omg what does that have to do with anything you retard!?!?!?!?!?!?!
maybe you need to articulate your point further. so far i have:
1. Mutts have a large gene pool
2. ?????
3. Evolution doesnt exist.
So why do lions produce lions only ? Why do tigers produce tigers only ? This is such a simple explanation but yet it goes right over your head.
Wow....just wow.....
Let me help you one more time.
If each species did not possess only genetic data to produce what they are you would see some funny creatures coming out of mothers. The genetic information gets bred out not in and that is why they can only reproduce what they are.
Dude, what the fuck are you talking about. Again, obviously the offspring of an animal has roughly the same genetic code as its parent. Do you see anyone arguing that? But notice the roughly part. Small mutations occur in the process of DNA replication. Infections by prophrage viruses add information to the genome. Information in the form of strands of nucleotides can, and most certainly are, randomly added. The mutations that are either neutral, or more rarely beneficial, build up over generations.
If two groups of animals become separated they will continue to vary and adapt in this way. Random genetic code is added to the genome and the environment decides which combination of that code will survive and dominate the gene pool (remember that word?). In the case of two separate groups, the environment has no way of guiding the separate gene pools in the same direction. If the groups remain separated the genomes of organisms in each will become less similar, and reproduction will become harder, and the phenomena will become more pronounced.
This is why you see some animals, like a tiger and a lion, or a horse and a donkey, that can still produce offspring together. They are still similar enough that fertilization can occasionally take place. But the offspring usually have problems, mules (horse x donkey) are sterile. This is because while the genomes are similar enough to reproduce in some cases, theyve still diverged significantly.
If everything is defined by a breed, please explain a mule or a liger.
Firstly, you don't believe that intelligence is a necessary requirement to create intelligence. You're going to prove it to everyone else, if not yourself.I asked you to be intellectually honest. I even provided a link to explain to you where your reasoning went wrong the first time you said this.
Since I never said, or made the argument that "... the brain was not created and programmed through intelligence" I have to wonder why you still insist that I have.
No. I see that it's your usual intellectual dishonesty.
No. It's your INVALID reasoning.
How is it invalid for me to believe intelligence creates intelligence explain?
Secondly, the defense you'll use when you lamely attempt to refute the above assertion will be "special pleading." And when I say "lamely," I mean it in the sense that even among special pleading arguments, I will be able to demonstrate that yours is especially lame.
Finally, the invalid reasoning that I was clearly referring to was your application of the strawman fallacy as your refutation of my actual point.
What's invalid in your reasoning, is that your conclusion is unsupported in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. That's what's invalid, precisely.
Demonstrate. With verifiable evidence AND valid logic, please.Sorry that takes intelligence.
It obviously comes from the Designer who designed the Designer you keep referencing. Obviously. Right?Where would such information come from if not a designer ?
And be careful about your response to this ... the temptation to be unambiguously intellectually disingenuous is likely to be a greater temptation than you can resist.
You can't say you weren't warned.Firstly, you don't believe that intelligence is a necessary requirement to create intelligence. You're going to prove it to everyone else, if not yourself.How is it invalid for me to believe intelligence creates intelligence explain?
Secondly, the defense you'll use when you lamely attempt to refute the above assertion will be "special pleading." And when I say "lamely," I mean it in the sense that even among special pleading arguments, I will be able to demonstrate that yours is especially lame.
Finally, the invalid reasoning that I was clearly referring to was your application of the strawman fallacy as your refutation of my actual point.
What's invalid in your reasoning, is that your conclusion is unsupported in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. That's what's invalid, precisely.
Demonstrate. With verifiable evidence AND valid logic, please.
It obviously comes from the Designer who designed the Designer you keep referencing. Obviously. Right?Where would such information come from if not a designer ?
And be careful about your response to this ... the temptation to be unambiguously intellectually disingenuous is likely to be a greater temptation than you can resist.
Sorry but i can hear people laughing you right now for this post.
Computers program themselves correct ?
Firstly, you don't believe that intelligence is a necessary requirement to create intelligence. You're going to prove it to everyone else, if not yourself.How is it invalid for me to believe intelligence creates intelligence explain?
Secondly, the defense you'll use when you lamely attempt to refute the above assertion will be "special pleading." And when I say "lamely," I mean it in the sense that even among special pleading arguments, I will be able to demonstrate that yours is especially lame.
Finally, the invalid reasoning that I was clearly referring to was your application of the strawman fallacy as your refutation of my actual point.
What's invalid in your reasoning, is that your conclusion is unsupported in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. That's what's invalid, precisely.
Demonstrate. With verifiable evidence AND valid logic, please.
It obviously comes from the Designer who designed the Designer you keep referencing. Obviously. Right?Where would such information come from if not a designer ?
And be careful about your response to this ... the temptation to be unambiguously intellectually disingenuous is likely to be a greater temptation than you can resist.
Sorry but i can hear people laughing you right now for this post.
Computers program themselves correct ?
You can't say you weren't warned.Firstly, you don't believe that intelligence is a necessary requirement to create intelligence. You're going to prove it to everyone else, if not yourself.
Secondly, the defense you'll use when you lamely attempt to refute the above assertion will be "special pleading." And when I say "lamely," I mean it in the sense that even among special pleading arguments, I will be able to demonstrate that yours is especially lame.
Finally, the invalid reasoning that I was clearly referring to was your application of the strawman fallacy as your refutation of my actual point.
What's invalid in your reasoning, is that your conclusion is unsupported in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. That's what's invalid, precisely.
Demonstrate. With verifiable evidence AND valid logic, please.
It obviously comes from the Designer who designed the Designer you keep referencing. Obviously. Right?
And be careful about your response to this ... the temptation to be unambiguously intellectually disingenuous is likely to be a greater temptation than you can resist.
Sorry but i can hear people laughing you right now for this post.
Computers program themselves correct ?
If, as you vehemently demand, intelligence can ONLY arise from intelligence, and no intelligence "programmed" your Designer, then your Designer obviously can not be intelligent.
Firstly, you don't believe that intelligence is a necessary requirement to create intelligence. You're going to prove it to everyone else, if not yourself.
Secondly, the defense you'll use when you lamely attempt to refute the above assertion will be "special pleading." And when I say "lamely," I mean it in the sense that even among special pleading arguments, I will be able to demonstrate that yours is especially lame.
Finally, the invalid reasoning that I was clearly referring to was your application of the strawman fallacy as your refutation of my actual point.
What's invalid in your reasoning, is that your conclusion is unsupported in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. That's what's invalid, precisely.
Demonstrate. With verifiable evidence AND valid logic, please.
It obviously comes from the Designer who designed the Designer you keep referencing. Obviously. Right?
And be careful about your response to this ... the temptation to be unambiguously intellectually disingenuous is likely to be a greater temptation than you can resist.
Sorry but i can hear people laughing you right now for this post.
Computers program themselves correct ?
Is your argument, then, that because humans have created things, all things must have been created?
your arugement is specious : spe·cious adj \ˈspē-shəs\Yeah house,medicine,car,telephone,computer,launguages, and they were all designed by the brain. But the brain was not designed or programmed by intelligence according to your beliefs. That does not sound contradictory to you ?
Everything in the body serves a purpose how is that not evidence for design ?
Definition of SPECIOUS
1obsolete : showy
2: having deceptive attraction or allure
3: having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic <specious reasoning>
spe·cious·ly adverb
spe·cious·ness noun
See specious defined for English-language learners »
See specious defined for kids »
Examples of SPECIOUS
He justified his actions with specious reasoning.
<a specious argument that really does not stand up under close examination>
Forty years ago I was not yet thirty, and my father still held to the hope that I would come to my senses, abandon the practice of journalism, and follow a career in one of the Wall Street money trades. As a young man during the Great Depression he had labored briefly as a city-room reporter for William Randolph Hearst's San Francisco Examiner, and he knew that the game was poorly paid and usually rigged, more often than not a matter of converting specious rumor into dubious fact. Lewis H. Lapham, Harper's, February 2004
you have no evidence of a designer ,your faith in one is not valid evidence.
if A "god" had indeed desiged ours or any brain, such a god would have started from scratch not piled one on top of another as science has proven.
if "god" had created us as the foremost life form on earth then why isn't our brain functionally and structurally very different from our closest relatives the apes?
if "god" was a truly great designer why did "god" intermix a sewer and a playground?
if that's not contradictory nothing is.
Wrong, it's reality an organ behind all modern day inventions and creativity we see. Where did this information come from to cause an organ to achieve all it has ? And it is still growing in intelligence.
