How does Complexity demonstrate Design

You list the kind of 17 flaws that are supposedly found in the Camp rebutal to the 29 evidences. It would be appropriate to show in detail how one particular rebutal is specifically flawed. Then do the same with which ever point of the 29 that DS takes.When that is done you can move on to two more.

In my words? Or in Theobald's, who has already done that?I know that you want to avoid a linkfest, but you're asking us to do what Camp and Theobald have already done.

I guess the whole, somewhat (or a lot )off topic, issue of the 29 examples is finished then. That's too bad.

Pretty much.Though, I think the 29 evidences, Camp's rebuttal, and Theobald's defense would, as a set, be a great entry into the links area.

yxifix, If YOU want to use any given premise in an argument, it is up to YOU to provide the adequate level of support for it. Your say so counts for nought.You are making the argument that because it's impossible for the genetic code to appear naturally, it must have been designed. Your premise, you support it. If you can't, then you don't have an argument. It's not my fault your argument is constructed in such a way that you are required to prove a negative.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

No, "say so" doesn't count for nought - because it works as prooved. Some things are just as they are because you say they will be like that.Sure, I'm making argument - because it's proof, Mark. You are right, it must have been designed... but, as prooved it can't be designed itself by accident without program how to do it - without information.
You can say whatever you like, this is evident argument and proof against the theory of evolution.

yxifix, What? That's pretty arrogant, wouldn't you say? Unfortunately for you I don't accept your unsupported word as proof. What nonsense! You don't have the foggiest notion of how to construct a valid argument, do you?First you must have agreed premises, then, using those premises you make steps that lead to a conclusion.Premise 1: The kitchen knife that killed XXX had ZZZ's fingerprints on it.Premise 2: ZZZ's DNA was found on the knife & on XXX.Premise 3: Security cameras note ZZZ entering XXX's flat at 19.00, just before she was discovered murdered at 20.00.The conclusion is that ZZZ murdered XXX between 19.00 & 20.00 using a kitchen knife. If premises 1-3 aren't known then it will be impossible to reach the conclusion, above. In exactly the same way, you need to show us that your premise is correct in order to reach your conclusion.No evidential support, no premise, no conclusion. It is demonstrably not evident, you would be able to evidentially support your premise, if that were the case. You have no evidence that shows that the genetic code couldn't evolve. You have merely asserted it, & attempted to pass the burden of proof onto myself.And we've reached the part where you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears & go, "IS TOO! IS TOO! IS TOO!", so soon? That must be a record, it only took 2 posts!The rules of logic apply to all of us, they don't get suspended for creationists, no matter how much they would like it. If you want to have "proof", then you need evidence that positively supports your premise. As I've pointed out in my last post, this will be difficult to furnish because you have placed yourself in a position where you have to prove a negative. Creationists make a lot of arguments like this.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

I don't really care if you accept it or not. It is prooved in the discussion about the proof against the evolution - you have to read it whole, not just 3,4 of my posts. And now tell me what do you think you are telling me with this? You are giving me proof that your theory of life creation is just bunch of nonsense. -> show me your premises and conclusions how the hell the information created itself by accident without program (another information). I don't have to have evidence that genetic code doesn't evolve - you have to have evidence it evolves, because Evolution says everything evolves. Got it? My proof is that you don't have evidence but you are still saying it is like that and it is science-based theory. It is NOT, unfortunatelly for you. You have absolutely no idea how it could be done - that's your main problem, you can't do a research with it. No we haven't reached that part... you have reached that part, obviously. Unlucky man. I have already proved negative by pointing out which important part of theory doesn't match (is missing) to the theory. Creation of an information. If you don't know the answer, don't say it is science-based theory because it is a BIG LIE.1:30 here, time to sleep.

good idea, but i will have to get to this a little later in the week. worked long hours the past few days and need some serious rest. hopefully by the end of the weekend i will be able to devote more time to this.

---

yxifix, Au contraire, I have read it all, & at no point have you shown that the GC cannot evolve. Ergo, we are all suppoed to accept your unsupported assertion that this is the case, & you can crybaby all you like, your mere word is not good enough.But out of interest, please could you link to where you think you have provided evidence. Thanks. Quite obviously I am showing a non-contentious example of how an argument is constructed.You are shifting the burden of proof, another logical fallacy. I have at no point in our discussion made an argument for abiogenesis. You, however HAVE made an argument for ID, the burden of proof is therefore on you to evidentially support your premises, & not for me to support an argument I never made anyway.Your assertion, the burden of proof falls on you.

quote:

---

3. Shifting the Burden of Proof

​

DEFINITION: The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

---

Yes you do, see cite above & below. You are making the claim, the burden of proof is on you, this is actually rather obvious. No evidence means no premise, which makes it impossible to infer a conclusion. That was the point of the XXX murdering ZZZ example. Straight over your head. Nope, once again, I haven't made a positive claim, you have. Your claim, you need to support it. The burden of proof is on you. Your "proof" is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. See below.Actually there are many theories out & about, you just need to google something like "origin of the genetic code". That there are plausible theories not contradicted by evidence scuppers your claim that such a thing is impossible. I'll say it slowly, you are claiming with no evidence whatsoever that the genetic code cannot arise naturally, therefore, if a possible scenario is put forward, then your claim is moot. But it's neither here nor there, anyway. It's YOUR job to support YOUR argument. Not my job to refute it. The burden of proof is on you.You may as well say there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, & it's my job to prove otherwise, rather than your job to support your claim. Nowhere in this thread have you proven anything. You need evidence to prove something, & all you have is assertion, hot air, & piss in the wind. I've seen you repeatedly commit two fallacies, however; shifting the burden of proof, & an argument from ignorance. see below.You would do well to read the rules for making a logically valid argument, here -http://www.virtualschool.edu/...ocialConstruction/Logic.html

quote:

---

One or more propositions will be are necessary for the argument to continue. They must be stated explicitly. They are called the premises of the argument. They are the EVIDENCE (or reasons) for accepting the argument and its conclusions.

---

See? You have to have evidence FOR your premise, not me against.If you scroll down the page you will note the logical fallacy you are committing, an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

quote:

---

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance". This fallacy occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it has not been proved true.

---

A logical fallacy does not a good argument make.If I concluded that in the ocean somewhere was a fish that could talk Hindustani, on the basis of you being unable to prove otherwise, you would have to accept my conclusion because you haven't proven otherwise, right?You see how silly it is? Doesn't it make more sense for me to have to support my own argument before you accept it?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 08-12-2004 07:22 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

you are just talking and talking and talking... but all you really say is nothing. Do you think I'm interested in your fancies and word-games? No, I'm not. I'm interested in facts, mark. Theory of evolution is the theory based on the facts and not fancies, isn't it? This is all what you are talking about in 100 lines... You are funny. What a poor thinking. So... O K ... forget about a word "proof" (you obviously love to play with words - that's poor). And tell me FINALLY how the hell information evolved? Give me a clear answer finally. All you said is something about googling. A bit funny, you must agree.Creation of life - first one is not atom, first one is not bacteria, first one is not a cell... first one is and always will be program -> information. Understand?? Information is at the beginning of universe, but information is at the beginning of life as well. So you have to start your theory from the beginning itself - from the evolution of information, my friend...(life=information!!) not from existing information!!! If you are talking about how was life evolved, you have to say how was information evolved, mark. Do you get it? If you are talking about logic, are you able to use it?So your argument is Evolution is science-based -> Then show me evidence FOR your premise, mark. I'll be happy to read itIf you can't... you are lying that you have one... UNDERSTOOD? And that means Theory of evolution is not scientific-based theory!
Sorry, you hear the truth.

You will refrain from saying someone is lying. Especially in a case where they clearly are not.You are somewhat confused on what you are asking for. And you are mudding up topics with your rants. You will take a break to reconsider what you are actually asking for and then pick the right place to post. I'll be back in about 24 hours to let you try again.You have access to the suggestions and Free for all forum.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 08-12-2004 10:41 AM

Where? In what form does information exist except in its physical representation?If there's no matter to represent it, how can information exist?The answer is that information doesn't exist; it's just a method by which we model the universe.Information is not a prerequisite for anything, including life. Life creates information, not the other way around.

Yxifix, Yes, the theory of evolution is based around evidence & not fancies, & if you intend to falsify it you are required to provide evidence of YOUR claims. I’m not the one claiming proof after committing two logical fallacies, though, am I? Your thinking is by definition illogical. For the, what, third time? I am not interested in how information got here. I’m not making an argument that requires evidence, you are. You won’t be allowed to shift the burden of proof. Shifting the burden of proof, again? For the fourth time, I’m not making an argument so I don’t have a premise. What don’t you get about this? Does anybody else not understand I’m not making an argument, therefore I don’t have to have evidence to support a position I’m not taking. STAY FOCUSSED! In order to lie, I have to be perpetrating deliberate falsehoods, since that isn’t the case, I expect an apology.Logic is about consistency. In order to make a valid argument you must follow certain rules. If those rules aren’t followed then your argument is logically invalid. It’s not playing word games. Pick any book up on the subject of logic. Go to any website that deals with logic & argument & you’ll get the same story everywhere you go. If I’m playing word games, then I’m afraid you are in a minority of one, because the entire world accepts the rationale of logic. If your arguments are not constructed in this way, following those rules, or you commit a logical fallacy, then your entire argument disappears in a puff of logic. The entire world understands this. No word games, your argument is guilty of illogic, pure & simple.Once more into the breach....Here are (other) specific links to shifting the burden of proof, & argument from ignorance. For your reference you can find links to lists of logical fallacies" by performing an internet search, they are legion.Your argument is of the form that because the genetic code has not been observed to appear naturally, it couldn’t have, therefore god-did-it.It is the premise is in contention. You have to show that the genetic code could not form naturally in order to have an evidentially supported premise. If you don’t, then you cannot move to the inference & conclusion stages of an argument outlined in this link.Your assertion that information cannot come about naturally at all is an assertion, nothing more, you have no evidence for it, in fact it is a huge argument from ignorance in & of itself. Invalid. If you insist that it is my job to show information can occur naturally, then you are shifting the burden of proof. Invalid. If you insist that because I can’t show something then it must be false, then you are making an argument from ignorance. Invalid.Thus far these two fallacies make up 100% of your line of reasoning, resulting in an appalling logical screw up. To be fair, you don’t hold the record, I’ve seen a creationist make no less than three logical fallacies in a single sentence. But this doesn’t detract from the FACT that your argument is logically invalid on two counts.You may rant & rave that I’m playing word-games, if you will, but that does not detract from the FACT that I am playing by the rules of logic as they are understood globally, & that you are spurning those same rules of consistency. It will do you no good whatsoever to tout your argument elsewhere, because the first person with an elementary knowledge of logic will shoot you down in flames. In fact I’m surprised no-one did it before me at EvC.If you are intent on perpetrating your arguments in their current form, then you enter the hallowed halls of the creationist. Where logic, reason, & the rational conclusions we draw from them are discarded in favour of illogic, unreason, & the irrational conclusions that spawn from the belly of such abject idiocy.I conclude, because you cannot prove otherwise, that somewhere in the ocean is a talking fish called Eric. If you cannot disprove that there is a talking fish called Eric in the ocean, then you are forced by your own reasoning to accept my conclusion. Is that really OK with you?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 08-12-2004 12:43 PMThis message has been edited by mark24, 08-13-2004 08:05 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

quote:

---

Creation of life - first one is not atom, first one is not bacteria, first one is not a cell... first one is and always will be program -> information. Understand?? Information is at the beginning of universe, but information is at the beginning of life as well.

---

If information was there at the beginning of the universe, then life is possible through the reconstruction of that information. So, once the universe is in place, then life is possible through natural means. Since evolution nor abiogenesis deals with the Big Bang, then evolution and abiogenesis need not explain where the already existant information came from. Understand??Let's shift the focus. Do you accept the laws of gravity (eg inverse square law)?Can anyone explain where gravity came from?If not, then why do you explain your acceptance of the laws of gravity? The laws of gravity require information, do they not? Unless you can explain where that information came from, then you should not accept that gravity exists.

quote:

---

So your argument is Evolution is science-based -> Then show me evidence FOR your premise, mark. I'll be happy to read it

---

Are you denying that evolution is based on measurable, objective evidence?Let's move to an analogy. Let's pretend that you are going to build a car. Now, do you have to know where the iron came from in order to build the car? Or, does the origination of the iron not matter, only the process of making the car? Why does it matter where the information came from? All that matters is that the informatin, in the form of atomic laws, was there to begin with. Everything after is the process of abiogenesis and evolution.