PROOF against evolution

Hopeless ignorant attempt. DEMAGOGY once again!If anybody is walking a considerable distance, the important thing is, he decided to walk considerable distance to get somewehere!... (where he is going it doesn't matter at this case, as in your "mutation" theory -> a destination is your aim -> eg created "vision").
Genetic code can't decide to create an exact mutation it wants and repeat it again and again and again and again. So do you understand where is your problem? DNA code is a program and unless some intelligence doesn't decide to insert an instruction that it can decide if it can make mutations when it likes [as well as an instructions which "tells" it the meaning of created result by mutation] and so theoretically create another informations, DNA code can't do that, Percy !! And THIS is your main problem. Don't just talk about your assertions and give me evidence for your premise.The only way (according to your words about mutations) is to create a hand by accident by mutations, that means -> By mutations is created 1st part of a hand, then by chance created another and another and another, until by chance half-hand is creted over elbow and then the same process continues until whole hand including fingers and nails is done, maybe in billions stages. ...well, or you can apply it to a "leg" of a fish with legs (part of evolution theory), that's the same in fact... so....you understand what you are talking about?? Absolut nonsense ! Percy. You have to think. Well... first of all, demagogic example => not the same example.
Have anybody changed a genome of a man during evolution? No, you are not saying something like that. So you can't use 'maybe it arrived off the sole of someone's shoe", sorry. ...so you have to talk only about desert, not about "accidental arrivals of grains of sand", ok? That's the first part. The second one is I'm not interested in each cell, I'm interested how a DNA code "knew" it is going to build a hand. So don't talk, and explain. I'm sorry I haven't been provided by your answers. You have to do it again, if you think so. ...the truth is, that to find out which color is '0001' (or A,C,T,G) you need a 'translation' program (RNA)! But this program has to have already 'inserted' information what exactly would new 'mutation' do, if it is "good" mutation!! Otherwise it just won't translate it and a big message "ERROR!" will pop up -> the result? Organism stops working properly.
So, as you can see, without intelligence it is nonsense -> Invalid. -> Mission impossible -> the point where whole theory just stops.
To learn something how such code works, click here.There is absolutely no chance DNA code can be created without existing cell and a cell can be created without existing DNA. Sorry, but that's the truth.

quote:

---

DNA is a code. It is written in only four 'letters', called A, C, T and G. The meaning of this code lies in the sequence of the letters A, T, C and G in the same way that the meaning of a word lies in the sequence of alphabet letters. Different languages use different alphabets to convey meaning. (Understand this?!!! Intelligence needed! What a shame for your theory, isn't it?)

---

So what does that mean? To find out which color is 0001, you need and intelligence which can create a program which is able to 'translate' a code '0001' . Percy.And that means -> my definitions in this message are proved ones once again.And that means... very simply -> "meaning of information" can't arise by itself without intelligence (as you would like) -> meaning has always came with information. And the result is:THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS JUST A FICTION.This message has been edited by yxifix, 08-17-2004 04:03 AM

Believe me, it is, as every other question of all of you. This is just a matter of principle. Please stop to be ignorant and don't answer by questions. My question was clear. Is it a proof or not? Then you can write down your questions. Thank you. Hopeless assertion, nothing more. I'm asking if a result - definitions are a proof of successfull experiment -> are they proved ones? Stop to be ignorant and answer clearly! Thank you. Sorry, I am not talking about mathematical proofs. Well.... or only mathematical proofs exists and no other? Thank you for the answer.The same question is going also to you:
If I want to find out if a computer can do an operation [randomly selecting letters] itself without inserted program and without a man to help it to do so, do I have to try experiment on every computer in the world? Please answer clearly, thank you. So we can get to the point very quickly.

yxifix,This requires a simple yes or no answer.Did you, or did you not, claim to have proved that an occurrence of something was impossible?Thank youMark

---

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

Once again ignorant demagogic question.You have to answer clearly on my stated questions, you've just skipped, mark.

yxifix, How can a question be demagogic?How can a valid, qualifying question be ignorant?How can I be a demagogue at all without being a leader?! That's all you have done with mine, avoided my questions. Join the club. You go back & address every question I've put to you & I'll do the same, deal?What would be the point anyway? You ask for evidence of the age of the earth, I post it, quoting the results, & citing the relevant paper, & the next post you are still saying it's an assertion!I've decided to get simple. Build up principle by principle.So, did you, or did you not, claim to have proved that an occurrence of something was impossible?Yes, or no? What are you afraid of?Mark

---

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

How convenient that your principles allow you to evade direct questions. Your question was not clear because that wasn't what you asked. What you said was I already answered whether it was a proof or not, as has almost everyone else on this thread, and the answer is no. Given the disjointed natur of this paragraph it seems somewhat rich for you to desire a clear answer. The results of experimentation will not prove anything, they will support or fail to support specific hypotheses. Experiments provide no proof, only support. OK, a short digression on the nature of proof. Mathematical and logical proofs are the only proofs in the sense of 'a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it'. You proof is not a logical proof as it does not satisfy these criteria. The experimental evidence you discuss might be sadi to be proof in the sense of 'any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something', in much the same way as the results of an experiment help to establish the truth by supporting specific hypotheses. This sort of proof is only conditional however, it does not establish any absolute truth. If you wanted to absolutely prove it then yes, you would need to show it to be the case on every computer, of the type you were studying, for all time. You could however draw conclusions from only a moderately sized sample run over a reasonable length of time, but this would not be proof, only support for the hypothesis that the computer will not perform the operation without human input.But even with all this no one is arguing that Pasteur's experiment is in any real doubt, simply that it is not a proof except in the sense of offering very strong support for a specific hypothesis. That hypothesis says nothing to the possibility of abiogenesis however as abiogenesis, as in the development of living things from non-living chemicals, does not require bacteria to form in sterile water.TTFN,WK

Please explain what you mean by this phrase.Adminnemooseus

quote:

---

Demagogy is generally a method of convincing a listener of a false fact by appealing to the person's common sense and logic. In this sense, demagogy is not a lie, since it doesn't use false facts directly, but rather brings the unsuspicious listener to draw the appropriate conclusion himself. Demagogy is closely related to the logical fallacy, but unlike the latter, it sometimes has nothing to do with logic.

​

Methods not involving violations of logic

​

Numerical demagogy - mixing of incomparable quantities. For example, "our government has increased social spending by 5 billion dollars, while the previous government has increased it only by 0.4 percent." Obviously, the latter sounds like less, but one cannot be sure.

​

False authority - relying on the general authority of a person who is not proficient in the discussed topic. Example: "the professor read my book, and liked it very much". The fact that it was a professor of chemistry who read a book on anthropology is omitted.

​

Methods involving violation of logic

​

For or against (bifurcation) - assuming that there are only two possible opinions on a given topic. Example: "Smith is not with us, therefore he is against us". A possibility of Smith's neutral position is ignored.

​

Arguments unrelated to a discussion

​

Unrelated facts - bringing unrelated facts that sound in favor of the speaker's agenda. Example: "Our beverages do not contain sodium deoxycholate". This is probably true, but the mentioned chemical is a detergent, and should not be contained in any beverage whatsoever.

​

Emotional attack - an attempt to bring a discussion to an emotional level. For example, "Everyone is against me!", "Can't I be right just once?", "You are stupid!", "You are demagoguing!".

---

Deal. Let me know about all unanswered questions which are not offtopic.
When I've asked something offtopic I've also said you don't have to answer/discuss it as it is offtopic, haven't I? No, that's what I'm talking about. You don't have to answer about mentioned age of the earth as it is offtopic. (assertion, yes -> you would have to show me a proof that the rocks are that old. If somebody just said that, that's no evidence, you must agree; so you must know a procces of the "experiments", how they were done.) Demagogic question.You have to answer to my questions mark... eg this, the most important one:If I want to find out if a computer can do an operation [randomly selecting letters] itself without inserted program and without a man to help it to do so, do I have to try experiment on every computer in the world? Please answer clearly, thank you. So we can get to the point very quickly.See last sentence. Both of us want the same... I hope so. To get to the point finally.

?I thought it is obvious... he is still ignoring what I have asked or said. And then continues with his demagogy (definition above). Admin.

yxifix,How does my question meet any of the "demagogic" criteria in your thread? After all, the nature of the demagogue is to convince using statements, I asked a question.As far as I can see my question violated no logic, does not meet the criteria to be guilty of numerical demagogy, false authority, bifurcation, unrelated facts, nor is it an emotional attack. Therefore it is not guilty of being demagogic. If you want 100% proof. Yes, & you have to keep all of them under observation all of the time time, too.Now answer my question, did you, or did you not, claim to have proved that an occurrence of something was impossible?Mark

---

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

To all: Let's strive to have substance in our messages.Trading messages of the nature of "I answered your question", " You didn't answer my question" etc. etc. etc. is not substance.BTW, the topic will be closed at about 600 messages, regardless of what's happening at that point.There should be no replies to this message, unless you want to make them at "Change in Moderation?", link below.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

Demagogy. My question was clear, as you can read here: So in this case you must apply the same on your "evidences" for theory of evolution...Join the club ! message 257
message 259
message 265So this means... that an experiment with a computer is not a proof but it offers very strong support for a specific hypothesis -> 'intelligence' needed when life was created. That is what you've just said.[Don't forget (20+20) is the same as 40]Bye bye.

And this is demagogy once again. It doesn't matter if you ask a question or not, important is its substance. (explained later)In fact, demagogy is your (well, of many evolutionists if not all) main weapon when discussing with a creationist. But now you hit the wall. You can't use it, and that's your problem, that's why you will always stuck in your own words you used against creationists before. And that's very sad.

quote:

---

Unrelated facts - bringing unrelated facts that sound in favor of the speaker's agenda. Example: "Our beverages do not contain sodium deoxycholate". This is probably true, but the mentioned chemical is a detergent, and should not be contained in any beverage whatsoever.

---

So that means Newton's proofs are not 100% proofs as well as you have to search each 100m of Sahara desert (sand) to find out if it is everywhere on the sand the same (maybe absolutely the same sand is harder on the western part then eastern one) ..........hm.... ok.So in this case you must apply the same on your "evidences" for theory of evolution...
And we've reached that point once again: message 257
message 259
message 265And now listen carefully -> I show you where is your demagogy -> Simple answer just to this question would create "unrelated fact that sound in favor of the speaker's agenda". You haven't asked "second part" of a question (although you know it is important) and that is: "If so, have you proved why it is so and when and how that "something" can occur?"The answer is:Sure. Impossible because a subject (non-living thing without an intelligence -> evolution uses nonliving thing [without an intelligence] to create a life -> all non-living things are without an intelligence) used in the experiment proved it. So just to make it clear -> I used non-living things to generate an information. And the result of experiment was not just that an occurrance of something was impossible -> that's just one part... I've also proved how to create such "something" - what is needed.
So I have proved "TRUE" as well as "FALSE" ....And now... YOUR POINT? You can tell everybody in this forum why did you ask something like that. Go on. You can tell it now yourself.This message has been edited by yxifix, 08-17-2004 07:12 AM

yxifix, Correct! A breakthrough! No it isn't. Either my question meets your criteria for demagoguery, or it doesn't. In fact it fails on the first hurdle. I am not attempting to convince you of a false fact at all, I am trying to get an answer (which is the only thing that can be false), which you have evaded for a second time.My question has no other "substance" than to seek clarification of your position.Did you, or did you not, claim to have proved that an occurrence/instance of something was impossible? But the question, "did you, or did you not, claim to have proved that an occurrence/instance of something was impossible?" is:1/ Very, very RELATED to the issue in hand, it is difficult for it to be more related, given it is attempting to clarify what you are saying. If you didn't say this then why have you been arguing all this time? In fact, answering the question speaks out in favour of your agenda, because it's your position being clarified.2/ Secondly, it is a question and presents nothing as being a FACT.Ergo, the question is in no way unrelated, or a fact. It therefore, by definition, cannot be demagoguery. Note that you said "it is demagogy once again", meaning that that question was guilty, in & of itself. If the question isn't guilty of demogoguery, then just answer the thing.There is no second part to the question, it is complete. What didn't you understand about it? There are follow-on questions that depend on your answer, which is why they are not being asked now. One baby-step at a time. I can't ask them until I have your answer, can I, it obviously depends on your response.But if you refuse to engage in honest debate, just say so. Alternatively, just answer the question & stop this childish evasion.Did you, or did you not, claim to have proved that an occurrence/instance of something was impossible?"Yes or no? Why the equivocation?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 08-17-2004 12:23 PM

---

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

Given your previous defintion of demagogy all this really means is that you don't believe something. Demagogy relies in the fact of which I am trying to convinve you being false even if all of my reasoning and all the evidence I provide is sound. Unless you can provide some evidence that the fact is false all yours cries of 'demagogy' add up to nothing more than stuffing your fingers in your ears. Yes your question was clear when you restated it in a subsequent post! Your first quote was from my message 501 but the question which was unclear was from post 490 and my initial statements concerning how mixed up that question was were in post 495, you restated the question in your subsequent post. That is exactly what science does all the time. As Crash so clearly pointed out to you proof and evidence are not always synonymous, I already made the distinction between logical or mathematical proofs and the sort of proof which is merely evidence in support of a hypothesis. Oh, you were doing so well, right up until the point where you stated your specific hypothesis. That isn't a specific hypothesis addressed by your experiment. All your experiment shows is that a computer without human input will not run a program to select a random letter. I'd be quite happy to agree with that finding. As has already been suggested, some of your analogies are pretty weak.TTFN,WK