|
Author
|
Topic: The Science in Creationism
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Show Me The Evidence
If you think I missed something present it and I will respond to it. You missed the bit where you showed us the evidence.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Show Me The Evidence
Since I establish evidence for my conclusion of a designer the very same way you do for Soley Natural Causes, I rather think I have You think all sorts of crazy things that aren't true. This would be an instance. Now show us the evidence.
Oh but I forgot you had actually refused to respond to my argument Why do you keep on drooling out this stupid lie? Do you really expect to deceive anyone?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: but reality does not look like what we know is designed.
at difficulty explaining. I was debating a creationist the other day on another online platform, and he/she/it brought up the very elementary "common design" argument that "Well, airplanes and cars both have wheels. And that's explained by a common designer!" Odd. Does he really suppose that all wheeled vehicles were designed by the same person?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 295 by Genomicus, posted 05-06-2016 8:34 PM | | Genomicus has seen this message but not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
Well I'm sure I'll at least get an attempt at an answer from Modulous But then you were never one to do much of anything except replace arguments with sloppy attempts at wit and slander But if you could make an attempt at the argument, You would at least look like your not being evasive and silly Heres my prediction. You won't I already have. Let's do it again. You have claimed that there is design in nature, but have provided no evidence for this. Show us the evidence.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 317 of 986 (783620)
05-07-2016 9:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 253 by ICANT
05-05-2016 7:29 PM
|
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
You did not say they were usually produced by a female anteater and a male ant eater mating.
You said they were reproduced by OTHER organisms reproducing with variation. Specifically, other anteaters. Idiot.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 253 by ICANT, posted 05-05-2016 7:29 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
If you think I missed something present it and I will respond to it. You missed the bit where you showed us the evidence.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
There is good evidence of design in natural things If the evidence is so good, why won't you show us the evidence?
The methodology of determining this follows very specific scientific reasoned principles Namely?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
You assume science has to be elaborate in all cases.
Can't somethings just be simple and have valid conclusions without huge involved processes
Nearly everything we do everyday Involves science simple to great So, you're not going to show us the evidence or tell us what your methodology is?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 332 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-07-2016 10:28 AM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 345 of 986 (783675)
05-07-2016 12:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 340 by Faith
05-07-2016 12:24 PM
|
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
Meanwhile what's wrong with pointing to, say "irreducible complexity" in living things as evidence that they were designed? Well, the fact that scientists have directly observed it evolving would be one thing that's wrong with it. The fact that we can see in the fossil record (what looks exactly like) successive stages of it evolving would be another. Before you can claim that an egg is evidence of a dragon, you need to disprove the existence of everything else that might lay eggs. This you have not done. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 340 by Faith, posted 05-07-2016 12:24 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 350 of 986 (783680)
05-07-2016 1:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 349 by Faith
05-07-2016 1:23 PM
|
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
Well, if the Flood does account for the strata and the fossil record as I believe is patently obvious So, you believe that it's "patently obvious" that the Flood accounted for the fossil record ... but you couldn't explain, when we asked you, how the Flood accounts for the fossil record. And now you add that you don't have the time or inclination to find out what the fossil record actually looks like. This must be some new meaning of the words "patently obvious" of which I was hitherto unaware. How can it be "obvious" to you that A accounts for B, if you neither know how A could account for B nor what B is?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 349 by Faith, posted 05-07-2016 1:23 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 351 by Faith, posted 05-07-2016 2:57 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 352 of 986 (783683)
05-07-2016 3:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 351 by Faith
05-07-2016 2:57 PM
|
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
This is of course an example of what Dawn has been getting at, requiring of the creationist far more or better quality evidence than you require of yourself. No, Faith. I do know how real processes account for the fossil record; and I know what the fossil record looks like. To me, it really is "patently obvious" that real processes caused the fossil record, because it is patently obvious how they did so. This makes me different from you and your inability to even begin to say how your hypothesis could even conceivably account for the facts.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 351 by Faith, posted 05-07-2016 2:57 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 353 by jar, posted 05-07-2016 4:02 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied | | | Message 362 by Faith, posted 05-07-2016 7:14 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 359 of 986 (783691)
05-07-2016 6:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 353 by jar
05-07-2016 4:02 PM
|
|
Re: the evidence
Well, there are natural processes that will move organic remains. Rivers and turbidity currents, for example. Fortunately their depositional environments are rather distinctive. Then there's scavengers, of course, but they won't move bones very far, in geological terms.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 353 by jar, posted 05-07-2016 4:02 PM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Show Me The Evidence
they have been taught that truth does not really exist and that absolute truth certainly does not What a curious lie. Are you by any chance insane?
They also have learned a way of understanding evidence that is contrary to any thinking person and reason It's called "science" and many thinking people are rather in favor of it.
This is why I have pushed the obvious contradiction in the evolutionary theory, of its conclusion Perhaps next you could tell us what this "obvious contradiction" is.
It demonstrates that the evidence that supports design, is the same type as thiers. Show me the evidence.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Show Me The Evidence
Yeah not a problem. Your so-called science does not test it's conclusion, but it has a conclusion, Soley Nature Causes. What is your direct evidence for your conclusion. When you can extricate yourself from this problem or let me know what type of evidence you used for this necessary conclusion, it may cease to be a contradiction Last time I'll point it out to you, unless you have a solution This insane gibberish does not identify a contradiction in science. A contradiction in science would be where science maintains two mutually incompatible things. If you think you have found an instance of this, please say what the two things are. I might add that as google produces no hits for the phrase "Soley Nature Causes" this is probably not a conclusion that anyone has ever come to. It is probably not a conclusion anyone ever will come to, since it is apparently completely meaningless.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 372 of 986 (783709)
05-07-2016 9:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 370 by Faith
05-07-2016 8:59 PM
|
|
Re: Of Mugs and Anteaters
But you are talking about how the system works once it is in place. The system itself is what is designed ... Well, that remains to be shown. My point was simply that the creationist has a different task from the mugologist. With the mug, we can appeal to a rule established empirically. The creationist wants to argue that a rule established empirically had, at one point, an exception which we did not observe. If this was true (and sorry about that) then this might not be impossible to prove, but it would naturally be harder.
As for your mugs that was a very entertaining video of the porcelain factory, but I think you are missing the point about demonstrating design. Well, I was asked how I knew how my mug was produced. That is how I know. I don't need to appeal to more difficult lines of reasoning.
Yes you can demonstrate it by knowing how a particular mug is made but design is something inferred from the form of the thing itself [...] The porcelain factory is recognizable as a human design, the anteater ought to be recognizable as a design as well, beyond the means of a random system like evolution to produce. Someone must have explained to you at some point that evolution is not a "random system". As to its alleged limits, you have yet to demonstrate them. Without something along those lines, you're merely begging the question. Yes, if I grant you the premise that all complex things (including living things) have a designer, then you can draw the conclusion that all living things have a designer. Also, if I grant you the premise that all complex things (including living things) are made out of metal, then you can draw the conclusion that all living things are made out of metal. Whoop-de-doo.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 370 by Faith, posted 05-07-2016 8:59 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2