Three evolutionists disagree. You are out of step with your people, placing your hands over your ears, and babbling incoherently the same drivel over and over.
They only said it was the best evidence not that it was good evidence: you need to stop posting falsehoods Ray. One of them has even specifically stated this. Your inability to deal with the issue is your problem.
What has happened is that you have mindlessly asserted against all sound logic that design does not indicate or correspond to Designer. Objective persons, which, of course, include the three evolutionists know that it is not a matter of opinion: appearance of design logically corresponds to work of a Designer.
I am very glad to see this. It gives onlookers an excellent taste of how deluded (or dishonest) the average Darwinist is. Design indicates Designer, it is perfectly logical and nature exudes design on a scale ungaugeable in the positive sense.
No matter how you rant and rave about this issue it is still a logical fallacy, Ray: it is the FORM that makes if a fallacy. You on the other hand are misrepresenting what other people said and still claiming a logical fallacy after the issue has been pointed out.
You are unable to refute it being a logical fallacy and so you resort to attacking me -- adding the
ad hominem logical fallacy to your list of failed arguments.
This is the
form of your argument, it is called the
Affirming the Consequent logical fallacy:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A
IF {a designer} then {design}
{design}
Therefore {a designer}
You cannot escape the
form of the argument being the criteria for the logic being false regardless of the argument: that is how logic works Ray.
You are unable to refute the fact that the FORM of this argument is invalid.
In reply, the Darwinist must assert that the appearance of design, contrary to all logic and intuition, corresponds to an antonym: anti-intelligence natural selection, or in other words, extreme Atheist nonsense.
I don't need to assert anything to show that your argument is invalid, Ray. We are not dealing with evidence for evolution, but evidence for creation, and that evidence needs to stand on its own.
We have been over this several times and you still fail to deal with the issue.
The issue was: The Bible IS evidence for Creationism.
And biblical creationism is based on the bible being true so you are assuming the bible to be true to prove that the bible is true.
If the Bible does not support your theory (and it most certainly does not) then on this level your theory is fucking false as a four dollar bill.
Again you are assuming that the bible is true. Where is your evidence that it is true? In your language? In your ability to deal with the issue?
Five items on said list say the Bible is true.
Asserting this does not make it so Ray. I have asked several times now for the connection between your list of evidence and biblical creation and have not had any reply on that issue. You are still missing the logical step between your weak (at best) evidence and biblical creationism:
Premise 1: Any one of your five items
Premise 2: (missing)
Conclusion: Bible is true
Where is your premise 2 argument?
Comment presupposes that the appearance is on the defensive. Evolutionary processes are eliminated as a possible source because the same claims that intelligence is not involved in nature. This means we have an overwhelming appearance of design in nature asserted to be the product of the opposite of intelligence or "design = unconscious process" which is extreme and gross illogic.
The issue is not what evolution claims Ray: it is about how good your evidence is for making logical conclusions. You have not eliminated the possibility of appearance of design by other factors therefore you have not made the case that design can ONLY be due to an intelligent designer. Appearance of design is in the eye of the beholder Ray, it is not objective evidence. That was the point behind my previous little story:
An evolutionist and a creationist are walking behind an elephant in a parade when the elephant drops a steaming load. The evolutionist goes to step around it when the creationist says "Don't you see the awesome intricate design of these droppings? Don't you see how they were intentionally designed and placed just for us to walk through?"
Embrace the pile Ray.
Bat sonar, electric fish, the human brain, humming birds, the product of something that is unconscious?
The product of selection.
Now we add the argument from ignorance and incredulity to your list of logical fallacies.
You need to show that these cannot evolve, not just claim it to be so (aside from your usual misrepresentation of what evolution processes involve). You need to eliminate the other possibilities before you can claim they can't apply.
The evolution of each of these is fairly easy to imagine, complete with evidence of intermediate organisms to substantiate it, but that is not the point of this thread: the point of this thread is for you to present evidence FOR creationism not evidence against evolution.
If your only evidence for creationism is that you cannot figure out how evolution works, then your only evidence is your own lack of imagination and willingness to look at the evidence honestly.
The CE is exactly that. Again, you are relying on perverted logic. The CE corresponds perfectly to Genesis special creation. What more could the Creationist want? We could not ask for better evidence for Genesis.
Asserting it does not make it so. You need to provide the logical argument that gets from the evolving life during the millions of years of the "cambrian explosion" to biblical creation. Where are the fish, the reptiles, the mammals, the birds, etc Ray?
By definition, IC means non-evolvable. If it exists (and it does) then the main claim of evolution (gradualism) is falsified.
This too is a falsehood: please read Behe again. You castigate IamJoseph for falsely portraying Einstein as a theist, and yet here you gratuitously misrepresent what IC means.
Here is the definition Michael Behe used when he made the term up (
"Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." - p 39):
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.
The conclusion made by Behe (and others) is that
IF evolution cannot produce these systems,
THEN they must have been made, designed, created.
The fact is that at least one has evolved and been documented, and this invalidates this concept as being evidence that must be for creation. See
Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments for more on this issue.
The main claim of your theory is not seen in the undisturbed geological crust of the Earth. Punctuated equilibria says species stasis corresponds to intervals of rapid evolution. But the point here is stasis and at face value microevolution is not seen.
Again you are misrepresenting punkeek AND missing the fact that there are still transitional fossils. You are trying to use punkeek as a red herring to divert the argument away from the existing of transitional fossils. The issue is your false claim previously that
5. Lack of species transitionality seen in the undisturbed geological crust of the Earth.
This is false. There are transitional fossils. See
Use and Abuse of the Fossil Record: The Case of the ”Fish-ibian’ By Penny Higgins for discussion of some of those transitions. There are many others. Your inability to deal with the evidence does not make it dissappear Ray.
Why? Because evolution is not true, that's why.
The topic is positive evidence FOR creationism Ray, NOT evidence against evolution: proving evolution wrong (which you have not even begun to do) does not make creationism true by default. This is just another in a loooong line of logical fallacies.
Enjoy
over 285 posts and still no real positive evidence for creationism, no "evidence" that does not rely on incredulity, falsehood, assuming the conclusion and other logical fallacies.
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2