How does Complexity demonstrate Design

JP, That's not true, you can potentially have a ToE without having abiogenesis, but you most certainly can't have design without a designer.Mark

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

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

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

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

yxifix, No, I said no such thing. Please stop putting words in my mouth, or I'll start putting some in yours. Deal? How about I pretend you said you want sex with children? Not nice, is it? You called me a liar. I have not knowingly perpetrated a falsehood. I expect an apology. Thus far you have exhibited exactly the sort of non-Christian behaviour I expect from creationists. Have you no shame?Do you accept the need for logic when consructing arguments?1/ Please provide a cite that deals with formal logic that supports your contention that I need to prove you wrong, otherwise you are right.

​

2/ Please provide a cite that deals with formal logic that supports your contention that when you make a positive assertion the burden of proof is on me.

​

3/ Please describe what you understand as "logic", & provide a cite supporting your definition. ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE ASSERTIONS! A totally evidence-free diatribe. It is NOT a FACT that information cannot appear naturally until you have EVIDENTIALLY established it. Logic is not a fact. Do I have to teach what evidence is as well as logic? Wha....? Yes, the ToE has the Burden of Proof upon it, & yxifix-logico-talking-fish doesn't! I'll forget to answer? Actually, you forgot to answer.Because I have asserted ,without any evidence at all there is a talking fish called Eric in the ocean, & you have no evidence to the contrary, then you if you are being consistent then you must accept that as a fact. YES OR NO?All you have done is moved the goalposts & avoided the question.By your "reasoning" you have to accept Eric as being fact, because that's exactly the line of reasoning you have taken with your other "proofs". If you say no, then you are a hypocrite. Most people would be embarrassed to be caught out in this way. You see my bolded text, above? I have made a positive assertion, & unless you "prove" me wrong, you must accept I'm right, right? Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong, right?Say hello to Eric, he's real, yxifix "logic" says so! Has the penny dropped yet? Surely even a creationist must get this!? This is a hypothetical scenario where you are supposed to learn something, as opposed to dig yourself deeper. Does the word "consistency" mean anything to you?No disrepect, yxifix, but how old are you?MarkPS If you want evidence of evolution, then open another thread, & I'll happily oblige. What is NOT going be allowed is you misdirecting attention from your ignorance of logic & evidence.This message has been edited by mark24, 08-14-2004 06:58 PM

---

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

yxifix, This was your original quote. Now listen very, very carefully. The quote you made was AFTER you called me a liar. You called me a liar in post 206. I made the above quote in post 209. That means I wasn't lying. In fact, open another thread, & I'll smash your arrogant pasty little ass. But here, I'm trashing your logic.Now apologise for calling me a liar. Are you really a Christian, or don't "real" Christians apologise? I only ask because in another thread there are Christians wondering at atheistic morality. I guess they should put their own house in order, first. I'm talking about nothing you said was actually factual. I thought I was clear. Why do you think think the fact that you provided no empirical evidence is funny? Tragic, yes, but funny?Now, you apparently, & I can only consider that given your record that you deliberately & dishonestly ignored the salient points. Here they are again:1/ Please provide a cite that deals with formal logic that supports your contention that I need to prove you wrong, otherwise you are right.

​

2/ Please provide a cite that deals with formal logic that supports your contention that when you make a positive assertion the burden of proof is on me.

​

3/ Please describe what you understand as "logic", & provide a cite supporting your definition.Also:"I have asserted ,without any evidence at all there is a talking fish called Eric in the ocean, & you have no evidence to the contrary, then you if you are being consistent then you must accept that as a fact. YES OR NO?All you have done is moved the goalposts & avoided the question.By your "reasoning" you have to accept Eric as being fact, because that's exactly the line of reasoning you have taken with your other "proofs". If you say no, then you are a hypocrite. Most people would be embarrassed to be caught out in this way. You see my bolded text, above? I have made a positive assertion, & unless you "prove" me wrong, you must accept I'm right, right? Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong, right?Say hello to Eric, he's real, yxifix "logic" says so! Has the penny dropped yet? Surely even a creationist must get this!? This is a hypothetical scenario where you are supposed to learn something, as opposed to dig yourself deeper. Does the word "consistency" mean anything to you?No disrepect, yxifix, but how old are you?"Mark

---

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

yxifix, The only person living in a fantasy world is you. A world where you say what you like & expect to furnish no evidence whatsoever. You refuse to act logically, you refuse to supply cites to support your logical contentions. In essence, you argument boils down to, "it is, I said so, so there".My nine year old niece has a better grasp of logic than you. It is quite telling that you think elementary logic is complicated.The reason you can't answer my request for cites supporting your logic is because you don't have them. An intellectually honest person would have at least checked, but I doubt you even did that. The reason you refuse to answer the Eric the fish conundrum is because it shows you to be the hypocrite you are. It's crashingly obvious that I am supposed to support my contention rather than expect you to refute it. But accepting that would cause your little house-of-cards to come crashing down, wouldn't it? It would mean you would have to show evidential support for information not being able to form naturally. And that, my friend, you don't have.At the end of the day there is no point debating with someone who refuses to deal with points raised in a logical step-by-step fashion.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 08-15-2004 05:46 AM

---

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

yxifix, In short, your argument is still of the form, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT, IT IS THEREFORE IMPOSSIBLE/FALSE. This is again an argument from ignorance & renders your argument invalid. It is also an insufficient sample. Abiogenesis had millions of years & an ocean to occur in, looking at one flask for a couple of days is meaningless. When you have tested a primeval ocean for a billion years, then you may have a point.It's a bit like looking for mutations in bacteria that allow for the metabolisation of lactose. You can buy lac- E.coli from lab suppliers. This means that the enzyme that cleaves lactose is removed, the bacteria cannot live on lactose. You then prepare 100 petri dishes with a lactose/sucrose 50/50 substrate. The bacteria can only live on the sucrose. Let the bacteria grow for a few days, then with a clean cloth (every time), press it against the bacterial colony & then press it against a newly prepared dish that has lactose & not sucrose. Do this 100 times. The bacteria should all die out, you should see no new colonies growing. In fact, this will be the case on most of the lac only petri dishes. Yet on some of the dishes colonies occur. Therefore the bacteria have gained the ability to metabolise lactose.If you looked at an insufficient sample, you would conclude (according to your logic) that such mutation is impossible. Yet it occurs nevertheless if you look at a larger sample. Quite obviously, it is therefore erronious to conclude "proof" of impossibility just because you didn't observe something when you were looking.Moreover, all Pasteur showed that bacteria can't appear from nothing in the space of a couple of days, not after a billions of years of both chemical & biological evolution across the globe.Well, that was easy.Do you have anything that is logically valid, it would save us all an awful lot of time?I am still awaiting a response to the following...1/ Please provide a cite that deals with formal logic that supports your contention that I need to prove you wrong, otherwise you are right.

​

2/ Please provide a cite that deals with formal logic that supports your contention that when you make a positive assertion the burden of proof is on me.

​

3/ Please describe what you understand as "logic", & provide a cite supporting your definition.Also:"I have asserted ,without any evidence at all there is a talking fish called Eric in the ocean, & you have no evidence to the contrary, then you if you are being consistent then you must accept that as a fact. YES OR NO?All you have done is moved the goalposts & avoided the question.By your "reasoning" you have to accept Eric as being fact, because that's exactly the line of reasoning you have taken with your other "proofs". If you say no, then you are a hypocrite. Most people would be embarrassed to be caught out in this way. You see my bolded text, above? I have made a positive assertion, & unless you "prove" me wrong, you must accept I'm right, right? Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong, right?Say hello to Eric, he's real, yxifix "logic" says so! Has the penny dropped yet? Surely even a creationist must get this!? This is a hypothetical scenario where you are supposed to learn something, as opposed to dig yourself deeper. Does the word "consistency" mean anything to you?"MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 08-15-2004 10:45 AM

---

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

yxifix,You have failed to address any of the points with any substance at all.My last post stands.

---

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

The posts where you failed to address my points substantively are the evidence. You dodged & evaded. Nothing more. Then you did it again.I'll let the admin deal with you.

yxifix, You are not addressing my points with substance because;1/Unrepresentative Sample Firstly, Spontaneous Generation is NOT Abiogenesis. In Pasteurs day bacteria, rats, frogs etc. were thought to appear in any dirty old corner, & that this was a continual process. What pasteur showed was that this is in fact not the case. If he sterilised the sample, nothing appeared on it. Within the time that Spontaneous Generation was supposed to act, a few flasks & a couple of weeks would make for a representative sample.Abiogenesis, on the other hand, asserts that life arose once (or a few times) in the earths 4.5 billion year history. Therefore a flask & a week tells you nothing. Pasteur falsified the idea that was Spontaneous Generation, but was utterly unable to shed any light on abiogenesis because of the time frame & vast area that was involved. It would be like looking for five minutes in the Sahara desert for a football, not finding it & declaring footballs are non-existent.Hence the sample is not realistically going to tell you anything about what happens across an entire planet for 4.5 billion years, it is unrepresentative.You failed to substantively address my point because you failed to understand that everything that is possible, doesn't necessarily happen in a flask when you want it to. And that in order to actually show what you want, you must deal with the geographical areas & time frames involved.2/ I then gave you a scenario in which the conclusions differed depending on sample size, ie 1 petri dish, or 100 petri dishes. The point is made regardless of what the scenario is about. I could have made exactly the same point using any example.The conclusion differs depending on sample size. Ergo, a representative sample size should be chosen depending on what is hopefully to be demonstrated.You completely failed to address the salient point, & attacked an irrelevant part of the scenario. In order to substantively address this point you need to show that sample size is irrelevant.3/Argument from ignorance An argument from ignorance is made when you make an argument of the form, "since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false", or, "since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true". Just because abiogenesis didn't occur in Pasteurs flask, doesn't mean that it couldn't given enough time, or enough flasks. That is what you need to show.In order to address this point, you need to show that you can at all times prove something is false because it hasn't been proven true, & vice versa.4/And you fail to address relevant points in general. Take the following for example, since it is relevant to the argument from ignorance claim, above.

quote:

---

I have asserted ,without any evidence at all there is a talking fish called Eric in the ocean, & you have no evidence to the contrary, then you if you are being consistent then you must accept that as a fact. YES OR NO?

---

If you can't prove that the fish doesn't exist, then it must! It is obviously nonsense to accept this reasoning. The burden of proof must on me to show the fish exists.This means that arguments of the form, "since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false", or, "since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true", are logically flawed, as shown to you in more than one cite.Of course, this assumes that your answer to the question is "no", you do not accept the conclusion that a talking fish called Eric exists. If you answered "yes" on my mere say-so, then you are beyond help. But that's what you expect us to do.In order to address the point substantively, you must answer the question, & then apply the same reasoning to your "proofs".5/You have repeatedly been cited relevant logic, & asked to do the same as regards your logic claims. You have repeatedly failed to do so. Given that is the case, how can you pretend to not understand why I think you haven't addressed the issue?"1/ Please provide a cite that deals with formal logic that supports your contention that I need to prove you wrong, otherwise you are right.

​

2/ Please provide a cite that deals with formal logic that supports your contention that when you make a positive assertion the burden of proof is on me.

​

3/ Please describe what you understand as "logic", & provide a cite supporting your definition."In the light of the above, please go back to post 231, & try again, this time address the relevant points.Mark

---

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

yxifix, Nope, not a 100% fact without checking everyone alive. But we can assert that it is very, very, very likely based upon the positive evidence that everyone we know that has been deprived of oxygen ultimately dies. We have lots of examples.Premise: People that are denied oxygen ultimately die. This is a direct observation where your premises are not, they are themselves assertions.Nice try. Message 225 doesn't deal with point 4. It is linked with the discussion because you refuse to accept logic. It is therefore inccumbent on you to provide support for your assertion. It is a tentative conclusion. But then there's no scientific 100% fact, they are all tentative conclusions. But that's because the experiments pertained to the time frame & scale of the theory. Naturally, it doesn't rule out that it can't, & hasn't happened somewhere, because the experiments weren't there at the time. No, they stand, I listed what was required for you to have dealt with them at the end of each point. You still haven't addressed them.Mark

yxifix,There is little point in discussing anything with you, your knowledge of logic & science is appalling. You need to go back to basics & be prepared to learn.I would be prepared to start a new thread & discuss logic, & how we reach conclusions, if you'd like. But you are just going around in circles reasserting the same things here. That's two posts you have utterly failed to address. The second one was very specific about what was needed from you, & you still managed to avoid meeting the necessary standards.So, do you want to start a new thread? I won't respond to you again here.Mark

---

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

You failed. And you failed because you are no respecter of logic, & neither are you prepared to learn.Mark