danielsangeo

Why?

Actually, what creationsts claim to be "irreducible complexity"....isn't. Such as the eye. The eye is not irreducibly complex. In fact, nothing has been shown to be irreducibly complex. Complexity isn't random. It follows rules.

hmmmm.... Elaborate on this and I you will prove creationalism/deitism is a weak theory. My mission is to get smarter and wiser in life not to rely on logical fallacies. Go on then. On to the evolution hard facts and theories. For example, it is observed that speciation can happen, it is not known that it is due to natural selection. Creationism relies on different logical fallacies for different types of arguments. Sometimes, they use "wishful thinking", while others uses arguments from ignorance, and still others just resort to ad hominem types of arguments. For example: "Irreducible complexity", for example, is an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). Essentially this is another "argument from ignorance". We do know that it was due to natural selection. See the "London Underground Mosquito" for more information.

It's the same process that you did, though...just a bit more complex. We did? Where? Then evolution is not "just a theory". ..................for example...? Why would laws have to be "made by someone"? The "universe" has evidence, "the life force/spirit/god" does not. That's not quite how morphology works. It will have to withstand scientific rigor. A discovery of a "Precambrian rabbit" would be intensely scrutinized because it would cast serious questions into the current understanding of evolution. Would you be able to assemble something that could withstand such intense scrutiny? That's not evidence. In fact, it's a logical fallacy. Some philosophers are illogical if they're using logical fallacies to support their position.

What you've done is a morphological deduction based on a variety of physical factors, which is partially how we can understand evolution when we see it in the fossil record. "Just a theory" is something you're going to have to elaborate on. Gravity is "just a theory". Thermodynamics is "just a theory". Germs are "just a theory". That word "theory", I do not think it means what you think it means. Wait, what? Where did rover say that? Also, evolution isn't "philosophical". It's hard science. it's not logical at all. If the Earth/universe was "created", then what "created" the creator? Except that evolution can be falsified. As rover said. Find a Precambrian rabbit. There is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE for any type of deity...so, how do you know that it's not just invented like Luke Skywalker was? Unless you wish to provide some evidence. Again, I'm getting the run around. Why can't anyone just provide the evidence instead of giving excuses?

How is it a "logical theory"? What is this a picture of?

"Creationalism" is not logical. Also, simply having something be "logical" does not a theory make. Harry Potter is internally logical. That does NOT mean that there's a "theory of magic" or something. Yes, they can be falsified by simply providing evidence that they are false. Creationism cannot be falsified since there is no evidence that we can test.

1. My presumptions? 2. That you can't even provide the list? 3. No. 4. Why don't you answer the question? 5. Why would the eye be "irreducibly complex"? 6. The "Cambrian explosion" was 70-80 million years long...and there is evidence that there were flora and fauna prior to this "explosion" which would account for what we see. I realize that to 'evolutionists', evolution is fact, because it's demonstrably true. I realize that to 'creationalists', creation is fact, but it's NOT demonstrably true. That's the difference. This world is not "completely random". It follows certain laws. Abiogenesis is a completely different argument. If you want to discuss that, we can. Evolution is fact. There's no getting around it. Vague "nuh-uhs" is not helpful.

someone's going to provide counter "evidence" to this "evidence". That's how it works. Also, that's not evidence at all, but if you want to continue this, I have revived the Evolution vs Creation thread with these questions.

I am reviving this thread because the atheism thread went into Evolution vs Creationism. I am going to respond to this from that thread: 1. Every fossil is a transitional form. 2. [citation needed], also, relevance? 3. You're forgetting a key factor. Do you know what it is? 4. What about them? 5. Not true. 6. Also not true. This is your evidence against so-called "macro-evolution"? And where is the evidence for creationism? Note: Questioning evolution (which is encouraged) is not a substitute for providing evidence for creationism.

Want more?

And? And why did you call it a "child"?

That in no way equates to what you are arguing. Except that you just called an embryo (you know, what we're talking about? Embryonic stem cell research?) a "child".

@ThatSmartGuy: Excellent! *air guitar*

I did not. So, you did not say the following:

How can I accept evidence if there is no evidence? Look, this is just the run around. AGAIN. Provide the evidence and I'll look at it. If I have questions, I'll ask them. I'll put it through the standards of rigor that all the evidence that comes to me goes through. If you've got something, I'll admit it. I have no qualms about admitting I'm wrong. But insulting me is just a waste of your time.

I'm not the only one saying an implanted embryo is a child, you on the other hand are the only one saying a living human being is really just a dead body. And "living embryo = child" =/= "living human = dead body". If you don't understand the analogy, just say so. You stated that if x leads to y, then x = y. Did you or did you not state this?

But, it's not evidence. At all. There is nothing that as ever been provided which proves 'creationalism'. What evidence do you have? I've asked many creationists for their evidence for God/creation.....and always get the run around, but never evidence. Where is it? Why can I NEVER get the evidence? It's like a big secret or something.

"Evoutionists" have evidence. "Creationalists".....don't.

I don't think empathy is in conflict with intelligence.

Not at all. I'm not the one saying that an embryo is a child. YOU ARE.

I completely agree.

And your definition is incorrect. Show me anywhere that I equate a living human to a dead human. You won't find it. You equated an embryo with a "child". Because implantation means it is more likely than not going to (if not aborted) survive to an age of over 60 years. And eventually become a corpse. See? This is your logic, not mine. But, if you really don't like this one, then a toddler is an adult and having sex with a toddler is the same as having sex with an adult. Sound good?

Doesn't say anything about birth in the definition... You asked me my definition. Not true. Bad analogies don't help you. Being illogical will help you even less. This is YOUR logic, not mine. An embryo is no more a baby than you are a corpse. Please explain why it's different. And I just said that I was NOT using that argument specifically to avoid this sort of argument arising. Yet, this is precisely the problem. Why is implantation the dividing line?

I haven't heard the "proof" that "global warming is a hoax" yet, but I feel that it's going to be well-debunked things such as the out-of-context CRU e-mails...