Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[YoursTrue]

This is a rather specious argument. Ideas can be shown to be wrong in science. Getting the exact answer can be very hard. We know that the creation story is a myth. Perhaps you should try to understand how we know that. And all scientific evidence points to evolution. You would not jump off of a cliff just because not all questions about gravity have been answered. You should try to be consistent in your approach to the sciences.

What I have done is follow your arguments. And since it was inferred to me that it is perhaps possible that the city of Paris was founded by non-humans because no one was around to see the founding of it, as if I have to support or accept the idea that maybe it was not founded by humans, at that point, all argument stops on my part. I just smile and walk away, leaving you and those who want to make arguments about that possibility.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you keep dodging this? You were gungho about being assured it was designed and built by people.

If you believe Paris was designed and built by people, then what is it that makes you think that?

You see, Subduction Zone, this is what I mean. By the way, Dan, I haven't dodged this at all. Yes, I am convinced by logic and reality that it was built by humans. Logic and reality. If you need more than that to ascertain that Paris was built by humans, that's you. Not me.
Frankly, it's odd that you might think or that it's possible there are cities on this earth that were built by non-humans, since no one saw them. But that's me. I'm sure you will have those who say it's possible that there are cities on this earth not built by human hands.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You see, Subduction Zone, this is what I mean. By the way, Dan, I haven't dodged this at all. Yes, I am convinced by logic and reality that it was built by humans. Logic and reality. If you need more than that to ascertain that Paris was built by humans, that's you. Not me.
Frankly, it's odd that you might think or that it's possible there are cities on this earth that were built by non-humans, since no one saw them. But that's me. I'm sure you will have those who say it's possible that there are cities on this earth not built by human hands.

What do you mean by reality? Can you be more specific?

Look at you twist and turn. I never said that I thought there were cities on earth built by non-humans. That is all you saying that I did. You are diverting again. Why all the twists and turns for what is a straight forward question that you should easily be able to provide a straight forward answer? While all the fencing?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You see, Subduction Zone, this is what I mean. By the way, Dan, I haven't dodged this at all. Yes, I am convinced by logic and reality that it was built by humans. Logic and reality. If you need more than that to ascertain that Paris was built by humans, that's you. Not me.
Frankly, it's odd that you might think or that it's possible there are cities on this earth that were built by non-humans, since no one saw them. But that's me. I'm sure you will have those who say it's possible that there are cities on this earth not built by human hands.

You are dodging it. I am pretty sure I know why.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You see, Subduction Zone, this is what I mean. By the way, Dan, I haven't dodged this at all. Yes, I am convinced by logic and reality that it was built by humans. Logic and reality. If you need more than that to ascertain that Paris was built by humans, that's you. Not me.
Frankly, it's odd that you might think or that it's possible there are cities on this earth that were built by non-humans, since no one saw them. But that's me. I'm sure you will have those who say it's possible that there are cities on this earth not built by human hands.

Why do you try to change @Dan From Smithville 's argument? Do you not realize that this is not proper.

Also your argument is actually one for evolution since we do see species evolve in real time. We never have seen the creation of a new "kind".

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you mean by reality? Can you be more specific?

Look at you twist and turn. I never said that I thought there were cities on earth built by non-humans. That is all you saying that I did. You are diverting again. Why all the twists and turns for what is a straight forward question that you should easily be able to provide a straight forward answer? While all the fencing?

More specific as to what reality is? my, oh my! I'm getting you mixed up with Jim then, because when I'm asked how do I know that Paris was built by humans, I tend to think that the person asking the question might think it's possible it was not built by humans because no one today saw it being built. If I confused you with Jim, I apologize. So is it that you know Paris was built by humans, or is it possible in your mind that it was not built by humans? Or do you want to know what reality is?
"Maybe you've never seen any space aliens, but recent polls indicate that up to 6 percent of Americans claim to have been abducted by them." That taken from a report by NBC News.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I have done is follow your arguments. And since it was inferred to me that it is perhaps possible that the city of Paris was founded by non-humans because no one was around to see the founding of it, as if I have to support or accept the idea that maybe it was not founded by humans, at that point, all argument stops on my part. I just smile and walk away, leaving you and those who want to make arguments about that possibility.

I don't think that was the inference. You were asked a question which you appear ot have ducked and still have not answered. Instead you tried to claim that the question was an inference. That was not the case.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you try to change @Dan From Smithville 's argument? Do you not realize that this is not proper.

Also your argument is actually one for evolution since we do see species evolve in real time. We never have seen the creation of a new "kind".

Yes! It's been interesting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More specific as to what reality is? my, oh my! I'm getting you mixed up with Jim then, because when I'm asked how do I know that Paris was built by humans, I tend to think that the person asking the question might think it's possible it was not built by humans because no one today saw it being built. If I confused you with Jim, I apologize. So is it that you know Paris was built by humans, or is it possible in your mind that it was not built by humans? Or do you want to know what reality is?
"Maybe you've never seen any space aliens, but recent polls indicate that up to 6 percent of Americans claim to have been abducted by them." That taken from a report by NBC News.

FYI, both Dan and I know that Paris was built by humans. The questions was whether you know how we know that it was built by humans. In other words do you have knowledge or just mere belief?

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think that was the inference. You were asked a question which you appear ot have ducked and still have not answered. Instead you tried to claim that the question was an inference. That was not the case.

Again -- no ducking here. And if you can't see it (see it?) then it's what they say, "Game's over." You are where you are, and I'm where I am.
So when you travel in a car, the car has a maker, doesn't it? If you go on a highway, it also has a maker. Singular (maker) can be used in the plural sense here, since a car generally has makerS. So if you see a tree, that obviously means that something (seed or root) got in the ground and enabled it to grow. Who made the seed? Where did it come from? Is it possible in your argument that a human could have made it?
A human obviously and I mean obviously could have planted the seed. But common reasoning would tell you that a human did not develop the very first seed or tree. I relate this again to the obvious -- that Paris was built by human hands only which seems to be the crux of this discussion. Just because no one saw the foundation of Paris being built does not attach itself to a possibility that it happened without a maker, designer, or human hands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again -- no ducking here. And if you can't see it (see it?) then it's what they say, "Game's over." You are where you are, and I'm where I am.
So when you travel in a car, the car has a maker, doesn't it? If you go on a highway, it also has a maker. Singular (maker) can be used in the plural sense here, since a car generally has makerS. So if you see a tree, that obviously means that something (seed or root) got in the ground and enabled it to grow. Who made the seed? Where did it come from? Is it possible in your argument that a human could have made it?
A human obviously and I mean obviously could have planted the seed. But common reasoning would tell you that a human did not develop the very first seed or tree. I relate this again to the obvious -- that Paris was built by human hands only which seems to be the crux of this discussion. Just because no one saw the foundation of Paris being built does not attach itself to a possibility that it happened without a maker, designer, or human hands.

You made big jump from cars to trees. We all agree that the tree had a cause. But you want to claim a maker. That puts the burden of proof for that upon you. What we can say is that there does not appear to be any need of a maker for the tree. Trees appear to be a product of evolution and we can give endless evidence for that. There does not appear to be any evidence at all for a maker besides failed arguments.

 

[YoursTrue]

FYI, both Dan and I know that Paris was built by humans. The questions was whether you know how we know that it was built by humans. In other words do you have knowledge or just mere belief?

I didn't study about the foundation of Paris, did you? I didn't bring that up as an argumentative possibility that just because no one saw it being built, how do I know it was built by humans? As I said, since you dwell on this point and want to know if it's mere belief, I'll only say in return, trees are, in essence, through their passage of time, a lot older than humans, since trees came before humans, therefore humans couldn't make a seed or tree, whichever came first.
Now would you like to ask me how I know that trees came about before humans?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't study about the foundation of Paris, did you? I didn't bring that up as an argumentative possibility that just because no one saw it being built, how do I know it was built by humans? As I said, since you dwell on this point and want to know if it's mere belief, I'll only say in return, trees are, in essence, through their passage of time, a lot older than humans, since trees came before humans, therefore humans couldn't make a seed or tree, whichever came first.
Now would you like to ask me how I know that trees came about before humans?

So dodging and ducking is all that you can do. In my world that is admitting that you are wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

You made big jump from cars to trees. We all agree that the tree had a cause. But you want to claim a maker. That puts the burden of proof for that upon you. What we can say is that there does not appear to be any need of a maker for the tree. Trees appear to be a product of evolution and we can give endless evidence for that. There does not appear to be any evidence at all for a maker besides failed arguments.

The jump was from that which is fairly absolute in logic (manufacture of cars, therefore having a maker) to that which is related to that which is not said to be made by human hands.

 

[YoursTrue]

So dodging and ducking is all that you can do. In my world that is admitting that you are wrong.

Would you say it's not realistic in logic to say that cars and roads obviously have a human maker, and trees do not? Really in order to continue a decent discussion it's a yes or no answer.
Either it's not realistic to say that cars and roads have human makers and trees do not, or it is realistic to say that cars and roads have human makers and trees do not. We can stop there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The jump was from that which is fairly absolute in logic (manufacture of cars, therefore having a maker) to that which is related to that which is not said to be made by human hands.

So you realize that it was a poor argument I hope.

At any rate why not try to learn why evolution is almost universally accepted by scientists. The percentage of scientists that reject it is less than the percentage of mentally ill people in the population as a whole. That is something that one should think about.

 

[YoursTrue]

So you realize that it was a poor argument I hope.

At any rate why not try to learn why evolution is almost universally accepted by scientists. The percentage of scientists that reject it is less than the percentage of mentally ill people in the population as a whole. That is something that one should think about.

Here's the problem: I did not bring up the possibility that Paris might not have been made by human hands, or, to put it another way, to be asked why do I think it was definitely made by human hands. To me, you might as well ask, how do I know a really special car was made by human hands? And if that's the reasoning, then really, I do leave you with "evolution is almost universally accepted by scientists."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would you say it's not realistic in logic to say that cars and roads obviously have a human maker, and trees do not? Really in order to continue a decent discussion it's a yes or no answer.
Either it's not realistic to say that cars and roads have human makers and trees do not, or it is realistic to say that cars and roads have human makers and trees do not. We can stop there.

Yes, we can spot human made objects. We can easily spot objects made by an intelligence. Yet life bears none of these hallmarks. Instead when one investigates it it is highly inefficient with many out of date structures still present, at least genetically if not physically. Why would an "intelligent designer" place the same broken vitamin C genes in both humans and chimps? Neither species can ever use those genes yet they are there. The theory of evolution does give us an answer for that creationism has not. And note, even though guinea pigs also have a broken vitamin C gene, theirs is broken in a different place. Again, this is easily explained by the theory of evolution but not by creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's the problem: I did not bring up the possibility that Paris might not have been made by human hands, or, to put it another way, to be asked why do I think it was definitely made by human hands. To me, you might as well ask, how do I know a really special car was made by human hands? And if that's the reasoning, then really, I do leave you with "evolution is almost universally accepted by scientists."

Neither did Dan. But you dodged the question.

Dodging reasonable questions is a way of admitting that you are wrong.

So forget about your false rhetorical question. It appears that you have a problem with reality. You want to tell your God how he made the world. I would think that would be blasphemy in most religions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

More specific as to what reality is? my, oh my! I'm getting you mixed up with Jim then, because when I'm asked how do I know that Paris was built by humans, I tend to think that the person asking the question might think it's possible it was not built by humans because no one today saw it being built. If I confused you with Jim, I apologize. So is it that you know Paris was built by humans, or is it possible in your mind that it was not built by humans? Or do you want to know what reality is?
"Maybe you've never seen any space aliens, but recent polls indicate that up to 6 percent of Americans claim to have been abducted by them." That taken from a report by NBC News.

It is interesting how you turn a question I asked of you into a series of posts about me, while never answering the question.

Now space aliens. You seem to be able to speak at some length about them, yet nothing on the origin of Paris.

What is it with creationists and running games to avoid answering questions?