Too Many Flaws with Evolution

Dewise writes:I think you are over applying what John may be saying. He is indicating that he would like to see creation or design taught not necessarily a particular religion. Design is both scientific and philosophic, not religious. Trust me you dont want to get in a discussion with me on this point, you will lose. Think about it.D Bertot

H writes:Ah like the falsifiability principle you start with an assertion and assumption. Would you like to demonstrate that design is a religion. You do know the difference between an assertion and an argument correct? Chance or the way in which things may have come into existence is based on the best possible information (science) and theory, this includes the ToE. How would the ToE evolution be any different in this respect, since it provides absolutley no information for its source. Think about it son. You do realize the difference between an assertion and an actual argument correct? One line assertions are not arguments. Come on H you can do better than that,right?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

[qs]Para:Anybody, independent of religion or the scientific method would be hard pressed to lose this debate. Its so simplistic that a chimp with ERV could win the discussion. It is a interesting how people like yourself will extrapolate a simple obvious and ridiculous point.D Bertot

H writes:Again with the false assumptions and unwarrented assertions. It is not necessary to ask who the creator is to see that from a scientific standpoint things could have been designed and or created. Who he is and what it is is independant of this assumption.Your arguments are like you cartoon piture, they are fanciful and contrived. You are correct, only two things apply here, but its not aliens or gods, its that things were always here or they were not. Since the collective evidence suggest that things depend on thier existence for something else it is very reasonable (scientific)to conclude, that a designer (evolution or not) is one of the only possibilites. In other words the design principle is as valid (scientific) in its tenets as the starting point of biological or cosmological evolution. Neither of which can demonstrate absolutely thier ultimate designation or source, but are limited in thier obvious possibilties. Therefore since both are derived from observable evidence and cooroborated by such, both are very real considerations or the origins of things and should be taught as such. Interesting you have done nothing to allivate yourself of the point that things could have been created by whoever to operate the way they do, have you. You have in a cartoonish way, simply restated the possibilites.I told you you did not want to get into this, because it is to simple a point to demonstrate. Your not one of those chimps are you, ha ha.D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

H writes:Is your implication here that design is a very real possibility? Lets put it in question form. Given the available evidence is DESIGN a very real possibility, Yes or No?In the first place the design principle has nothing to do with who created it, it is independent of that question. From a strictly scientific standpoint, this question is not possible to answer, only that design is a very real possibility. Secondly, if science asks questions, why does it not include this principle in its conclusions following the concepts of evolution. Most evolutionists dismiss the ultimate source as unknowable therefore, not applicable. By obseving the avalible evidence, thats called the scientific principle I believe. Thanks for cooroborating my conclusion about the finite nature of physical reality. Uh oh, he asserting again. My firend its not that evolution did or did not do anything. Its the very real possiblity given the observation available evidence that its laws, it appears to follow, make design a scientific viable possibilty. Your struggle is trying to disavow an obvious principle. Not to say it WASNT designed, only that logic would dictate it is a very real possibilty, that is supported by logic and scientific reasoning principles. You can do nothing to remove this point. Your kidding correct? How about anything and everything that follows
observable laws or what appear to be laws. Asserting that something may have not been designed is not the same as showing it was not. In this your task is impossible. Not that mine is not, onlythat your is as well. At any rate both are very viable conclusions based on the best possible evidence and scientific and logical principles. Pay attention Huntard, when you can remove the design principle from the realm of the observable and scientific realm, then you will have accomlished your task. Throwing the word religion at it doesnt make it go away.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.