Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[YoursTrue]

My question goes to the nature of how we come to some conclusions with his positive claim as an example. I thought it would be a simple demonstration, but his unusual reluctance was unexpected.

So again, because no one today was around when the "foundation of Paris" was built, does that include a possibility that it could have emerged from the ground without a designer or former? In other words, by chance? I say no. Do you say maybe?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why add the false accusation at the end of your post? When one makes an obviously false statement it takes away form any impact that their previous work may have had. People remember the lie and ignore where you may have been correct. Not a wise debating technique.

What is the false statement.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I answered it. I'll repeat the answer. Every house that you or I have ever seen, including igloos in pictures, has a maker. Since we were not around when the foundations of Paris were laid, I believe it was laid by human hands. It's kind of like the next whole number in sequence from 1 to 100. 2 follows 1, 100 follows 99. That's how it works.
But if you think it's possible that a car, house, city, bridge, etc. might not have a maker because you did not see them being made, that's up to you.

I am not sure why you have been so evasive about this. But this is sufficient. You have evidence of the process being carried out through personal observation. You have never seen human structures and human cities built by anyone but humans. It would not make sense to look at Paris and consider that ants were the founders. In an example like Riyahd, Saudi Arabia, a person could practically have watched that city being built from youth to old age in a single lifetime and it was all built by people.

We have many models, historical accounts and archaeological evidence to support the conclusion that Paris was built by people. I do not think otherwise, but that is not important. It is how that conclusion is arrived at that is important.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I answered it. I'll repeat the answer. Every house that you or I have ever seen, including igloos in pictures, has a maker. Since we were not around when the foundations of Paris were laid, I believe it was laid by human hands. It's kind of like the next whole number in sequence from 1 to 100. 2 follows 1, 100 follows 99. That's how it works.
But if you think it's possible that a car, house, city, bridge, etc. might not have a maker because you did not see them being made, that's up to you.

Thank you for finally answering this.

I have made no statements where I directly or indirectly indicated that I thought that any man made construct did not have a maker. A human maker.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So again, because no one today was around when the "foundation of Paris" was built, does that include a possibility that it could have emerged from the ground without a designer or former? In other words, by chance? I say no. Do you say maybe?

I am not sure whose question you are answering with your response about spontaneous city emergence, but it was not a question or statement I made. I may have asked how you know it was people that built Paris and why you did not conclude some other agent, but you getting all this from that is entirely of your own making.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So again, because no one today was around when the "foundation of Paris" was built, does that include a possibility that it could have emerged from the ground without a designer or former? In other words, by chance? I say no. Do you say maybe?

So now we have a model for observation, testing and conclusion that works well enough for both of us that we can look at Paris today, review models that we know, examine other evidence and come to a conclusion that we both feel very confident about. Along the way, we also reject other possible origins as not fitting any evidence.

What else can we apply this to?

 

[YoursTrue]

I am not sure why you have been so evasive about this. But this is sufficient. You have evidence of the process being carried out through personal observation. You have never seen human structures and human cities built by anyone but humans. It would not make sense to look at Paris and consider that ants were the founders. In an example like Riyahd, Saudi Arabia, a person could practically have watched that city being built from youth to old age in a single lifetime and it was all built by people.

We have many models, historical accounts and archaeological evidence to support the conclusion that Paris was built by people. I do not think otherwise, but that is not important. It is how that conclusion is arrived at that is important.

Thank you, you have answered the question. And that is why I believe Paris was built by human hands, which I have said more than once. Can I prove that it was not? Can you? And that is the question. Logic tells me it was, because the proof is, as they say, in the pudding. Or the city. I am certain absolutely that it was built by human hands. Just like I'm certain that when I pass a house, it was built by human hands, but I wasn't there when they did it. Can I prove that Paris was built by human hands? Which again -- leads to the uptake on that. Is it possible it was NOT built by human hands? That is the question I find you and Subduction Zone evading. I say it's not possible. Do you say it's possible? If so, why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So again, because no one today was around when the "foundation of Paris" was built, does that include a possibility that it could have emerged from the ground without a designer or former? In other words, by chance? I say no. Do you say maybe?

Trying to change the question is not a wise debating technique. It does not fool anyone.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So again, because no one today was around when the "foundation of Paris" was built, does that include a possibility that it could have emerged from the ground without a designer or former? In other words, by chance? I say no. Do you say maybe?

I assume you mean that no one living today was around to see when the "foundation of Paris" was built. You have a fairly original and innovative idea. I have never considered the possibility of a small, ancient, fishing village emerging spontaneously from the ground in France or any other location. I doubt it is possible, but certainly it would be highly improbable to the point that it was almost zero. Why would I say maybe. I know of no reason to conclude the possibility and have already stated more than once that I conclude that Paris was designed and built by people. I have not previously mentioned this, but it was also built slowly over time and was not constructed as we see it today. Do you think it was built as it is today, 2,000 years ago? See I can do what you are doing too. What point is there in doing that though, other than to aggravate each other.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you, you have answered the question. And that is why I believe Paris was built by human hands, which I have said more than once. Can I prove that it was not? Can you? And that is the question. Logic tells me it was, because the proof is, as they say, in the pudding. Or the city. I am certain absolutely that it was built by human hands. Just like I'm certain that when I pass a house, it was built by human hands, but I wasn't there when they did it. Can I prove that Paris was built by human hands? Which again -- leads to the uptake on that. Is it possible it was NOT built by human hands? That is the question I find you and Subduction Zone evading. I say it's not possible. Do you say it's possible? If so, why?

What question is that? It was your question to answer not mine.

Let's not play games. If you feel that you must make a game out of this, I am not going waste my time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the false statement.

\Oh please, such a short post and only one possible false statement. You are making it look as if you are lying for Jesus:

"But if you think it's possible that a car, house, city, bridge, etc. might not have a maker because you did not see them being made, that's up to you."

 

[YoursTrue]

I am not sure whose question you are answering with your response about spontaneous city emergence, but it was not a question or statement I made. I may have asked how you know it was people that built Paris and why you did not conclude some other agent, but you getting all this from that is entirely of your own making.

What am I getting from my own making? That logic dictates that it is a certainty that Paris was built by humans?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you, you have answered the question. And that is why I believe Paris was built by human hands, which I have said more than once. Can I prove that it was not? Can you? And that is the question. Logic tells me it was, because the proof is, as they say, in the pudding. Or the city. I am certain absolutely that it was built by human hands. Just like I'm certain that when I pass a house, it was built by human hands, but I wasn't there when they did it. Can I prove that Paris was built by human hands? Which again -- leads to the uptake on that. Is it possible it was NOT built by human hands? That is the question I find you and Subduction Zone evading. I say it's not possible. Do you say it's possible? If so, why?

It is always a good idea to use an "@" before mentioning someone's name. You won't even have to type in the full name.

And your statement here is false. We did not imply that it was possible for another source to have built Paris. The question always was how you knew that Paris was built by humans. If you asked us we could have explained how we knew that to be the case. Once again this is not an honest or proper debating technique. It does not fool anyone and only makes your opposition think less of you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you, you have answered the question. And that is why I believe Paris was built by human hands, which I have said more than once. Can I prove that it was not? Can you? And that is the question. Logic tells me it was, because the proof is, as they say, in the pudding. Or the city. I am certain absolutely that it was built by human hands. Just like I'm certain that when I pass a house, it was built by human hands, but I wasn't there when they did it. Can I prove that Paris was built by human hands? Which again -- leads to the uptake on that. Is it possible it was NOT built by human hands? That is the question I find you and Subduction Zone evading. I say it's not possible. Do you say it's possible? If so, why?

I know that you repeated your claim several times. The question you avoided so "skillfully" was to the reasons for your claim.

You could have provided the answers that are in this immediately after I asked.

I have not avoided the question about the possibility that is was not built by human hands. You acknowledged that when you repeated some of the possible alternatives that I previously mentioned. Why the prevarication now? Why make it seem like I have avoided something that I have actively used in questioning you?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What am I getting from my own making? That logic dictates that it is a certainty that Paris was built by humans?

More games. How unexpected.

What you claim I have directly or indirectly stated is of your own making and nothing that I did.

 

[YoursTrue]

What question is that? It was your question to answer not mine.

Let's not play games. If you feel that you must make a game out of this, I am not going waste my time.

What's the game? That logic dictates when I see a house or city, I know it has a maker? And which you are not answering yes, or no. Or perhaps you did, but I haven't seen your answer. And I agree, if you're playing a game about logic regarding the evidence of evolution, and providing no proof as you understand it and as to what scientists believe (the majority of them, you say), then here is what I believe: you go along with what the majority say, accepting it. Do you know or can you explain why scientists say that unicellular matter came about billions of years ago? I'm asking about two things. What do you know about the proof of unicellular matter as the first living thing, and what do you know as to why they say they (or it) emerged billions of years ago?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Trying to change the question is not a wise debating technique. It does not fool anyone.

It seems that is all we are going to get. It is the same thing over and over. From one creationist to the next. Games and tactics rather than debate, discussion and answers.

 

[YoursTrue]

I know that you repeated your claim several times. The question you avoided so "skillfully" was to the reasons for your claim.

You could have provided the answers that are in this immediately after I asked.

I have not avoided the question about the possibility that is was not built by human hands. You acknowledged that when you repeated some of the possible alternatives that I previously mentioned. Why the prevarication now? Why make it seem like I have avoided something that I have actively used in questioning you?

I'll go along with you for a moment. You have ascertained that Paris was built by human hands. Therefore, in your mind, it was not built by non-humans. Do I have this right so far about you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems that is all we are going to get. It is the same thing over and over. From one creationist to the next. Games and tactics rather than debate, discussion and answers.

It is a variation on what I call the Ostrich Defense. Keep yourself ignorant of the facts being debated by any means possible. It is the equivalent of burying one's head in the sand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What's the game? That logic dictates when I see a house or city, I know it has a maker? And which you are not answering yes, or no. Or perhaps you did, but I haven't seen your answer. And I agree, if you're playing a game about logic regarding the evidence of evolution, and providing no proof as you understand it and as to what scientists believe (the majority of them, you say), then here is what I believe: you go along with what the majority say, accepting it. Do you know or can you explain why scientists say that unicellular matter came about billions of years ago? I'm asking about two things. What do you know about the proof of unicellular matter as the first living thing, and what do you know as to why they say they (or it) emerged billions of years ago?

Do you fish? Ever have one get off the stringer. Watch it flop frantically around. Head, tail. Head, tail. Trying desperately to get back to water. Beating itself unmercifully in a mad attempt to save itself.

I have seen that a lot. Surprisingly, I see it more here than I do fishing.