PROOF against evolution

quote:

---

Oh, I see. So the human DNA, containing three times the information contained in a thirty volumn set of the Encylopedia Brittanica, which so intricately and precisely program and control the cell, compiled (cobbled up) itself out of twisted and force fitted sources to emerge into the wonderful complex computer like substance we are observing it to be today.

​

Ok, ok.........so now I'm learning the stuff I would've learned with a PHD in physics in the schools of higher knowledge. Thanks........thanks, but no thanks, my friend.

---

So, Buz, you just can't believe it, therefore it can't be true.That's called a fallacy, m'dear. It's the Argument from Personal Incredulity.Why would you expect to understand something you have not bothered to learn about, Buz? If you have questions, why don't you go research them at sources of legitimate science and learn why nearly the entire life sciences community accepts what you will not?Oh, and the brain does not operate very much like a computer at all.

quote:

---

Why do creationists insist on connecting random occurances with evolution in that way? Evolution is not random - it depends on environmental pressures - but the mutations that lead to evolution are. It's a matter of going through them until you find the one that works, which then leads to evolution.

---

Why do they make that erroneous connection? Because they have been taught an erroneous definition of evolution by religious people who either don't know better themselves or who have set out to deliberately deceive people to gain more followers. (The ends justifies the means)Or, possibly there are people who have so completely deluded themselves that whatever 'evidence' supports their views is, by definition, is true, and anything that contradicts their position is, by definition, false. The conclusion is decided upon first, then evidence is rejected or accepted based upon what they are "supposed" to find.I actually think that this is the most common occurence. Duane Gish and Henry Morris are perfect examples of people who have done this nearly their entire career at the helm of the ICR.

Well, why not ask True Creation to have a look, in his Admin. mode. He's fair, and a Creationist.

quote:

---

I guess the bottom line on my argument for "Proof against evolution" so far as genetics go is that regardless of percentages, the staggering amount of information in the genetic material is far more than nature alone could possibly accomplish, no matter how long you give it, in my humble opinion.

---

But Buz, don't you see?It is NOT humbleness that makes you doubt, but complete arrogance.You, personally, can't see how such a large amount of genetic material could come about naturally. You therefore conclude that all of the thousands and thousands of scientists and experts in genetics and biology who accept that it has come about naturally after years and years of difficult study and years and years of work and experience in the field are flat out wrong.You consider your relatively uninformed, ignorant, baseless opinion (actually, it's an Argument from Personal Incredulity) to be of much greater value than that of thousands of professionals in the field.Utterly arrogant, AND ignorant!

quote:

---

Now who's being arrogant?

---

It's still you, Buz.

quote:

---

There happens to be thousands who believe large amounts of information does not happen randomly, including at least a minority of the highly educated scientists.

---

Thousands of people believe in Astrology (edited 7/19 to change "astronomy" to "astrology"), dowsing, and the Loch Ness Monster, and a bunch of other unfounded claims. The number of people who believe something, based upon little to no evidence, bears not at all upon the veracity of the claim.

quote:

---

I should think if you want to debate CvE you should expect your opponents to think differently than you

---

Of course. However, I do expect people to debate in good faith, provide evidence to support their claims, not make claims that they cannot support, and be humble enough to correct and learn from their mistakes.

quote:

---

and your other scientific fellows without all this meanspirited insult. Yes we are a minority, but we're not ignoramuses.

---

OK, buz, then why don't you explain to me how your uninformed opinion should mean anything at all in a debate that concerns evidence?It is not mean-spirited to point out the fallacies and flaws in one's opponent's arguments, either. I am sorry if you don't like to hear it, but your words speak for themselves.You didn't address my point that yours is an Argument from Personal Incredulity, and you didn't address my point that it is the height of arrogance for you you put your ignorant opinion in the same category of value as that of thousands and thousands of scientists and experts who have studied and works for years and years in the field.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-18-2003][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-19-2003]

His avatar is a profile shot of Hellboy, Percy.FYI