Passerbye
Member
Well I tried to just be a spectator but you seemed to have dragged me out of my hole. Lets get on with the fun
shall we.
My reasons for leaving were listed. You had very little, if anything, to do with them.
34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." Matthew 5:34-37 NIV
Oh okay. So lets work on this basis for a little bit shall we. Name one thing of the past that can be postulated without an Argument from Ignorance being stated.
So unless reasons are presented then it is a jump? You have not invalidated his conclusions or postulated on how he got to them, thus it must be a jump? Argument from Ignorance.
Very childish. The way things are understood as humor has not always been the same. If you think that they called them sheep and it was funny at the time you would be wrong. As far as I know this statement from the bible could have been the start of that humor. Too many people switching to Christianity; someone says so youre just another sheep; a few years later the humor has been formed.
Oh, I wasnt able to come to grips with it. I simply came to the conclusion that stating that something is an argument from ignorance is useless since every statement about the past or future or hypothesis falls under that category in one way or another. It seems to me that it doesnt belong here. If I am wrong in this then state a situation where it would be wrong and we can work from there.
Do you think no one that has come to other theories besides yours understands logic?
DNA creates DNA by using its genetic information (intelligence), thus intelligence can create DNA.
Can you prove evolution positive, other than presenting countless theories and hypotheses about what the data shows, when the data can be interpreted just as easily in other ways.
This is true. It has never been observed and the facts show that molecules that must be formed for life dont naturally get together. They make other things, other ways. I have not seen any chemistry information that shows that the parts of life join together naturally. The fact is they hate it, the refuse it, and if they did it wouldnt last more than a second or two; and that is only with the individual parts of it, which there are many parts that hate to form what is required for life. The molecules required would need to all be forced to join to make the correct things for life, the things would need to come together properly, and they would need to be in an environment that wouldnt destroy them. Such conditions are absolutely unthinkable. The figures given on how probable it is for this to happen are used to say that there is a chance. The fact it that when conditions are made the same probability is always present. It doesnt change just because there is more space, or because the same options were present in other places. If the probability is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. then if it there are 999,999,999,999,999,999,999 tests the probability isnt 1 in 1 in the last test. It is still 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Do you recognize this?
Hey, that is what you guys have been doing. Isnt that nice of you.
No. I have not read anything that shows that the things required for life can at all form together. If you have found such data please post a link for me.
Oh, now your speculating on how a conclusion was reached. Stick to speculating on your own mind and conclusions. Unless previously stated, what he wants and the way he comes to a conclusion can only be speculated on and thus the opinions should be kept to yourself. This is not a place for mental speculation. It is a place for discussion threw showing data and interpreting it.
But I am surprised that Passerbye didn't think to tell us until after my comments were posted.
My reasons for leaving were listed. You had very little, if anything, to do with them.
If you are not equating God, in any way, with the Intelligence, would you swear that, as they say, on a stack of Bibles? If you can do this, then we can talk about other means of "begining" with intelligence.
34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." Matthew 5:34-37 NIV
He did explain the argument from ignorance. With the coin analogy. If two possibilities presented are A and B, and you conclude that A is not possible this does not make B true, because there could be a C and a D... etc.. In order to accept B as reasonably likely, you have to validate B. Not concentrate on invalidating A alone.
Oh okay. So lets work on this basis for a little bit shall we. Name one thing of the past that can be postulated without an Argument from Ignorance being stated.
Hes quite right to call it a jump unless the reasons for coming to that conclusion are presented.
So unless reasons are presented then it is a jump? You have not invalidated his conclusions or postulated on how he got to them, thus it must be a jump? Argument from Ignorance.
Hilarious! The bible references to followers as 'sheep' and the 'flock' is so amazingly ironic one would think the writers had a good sense of humour...
Very childish. The way things are understood as humor has not always been the same. If you think that they called them sheep and it was funny at the time you would be wrong. As far as I know this statement from the bible could have been the start of that humor. Too many people switching to Christianity; someone says so youre just another sheep; a few years later the humor has been formed.
We haven't. What's the point? This is the classic Argument from Ignorance - that your good friend Passerbye was never able to come to grips with. Please understand this - if you could prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that evolution was a complete hoax, with not one iota of truth - it would still NOT be evidence FOR ID. If you get nothing else from this thread (or this post), please learn this one immutable fact.
Oh, I wasnt able to come to grips with it. I simply came to the conclusion that stating that something is an argument from ignorance is useless since every statement about the past or future or hypothesis falls under that category in one way or another. It seems to me that it doesnt belong here. If I am wrong in this then state a situation where it would be wrong and we can work from there.
IF, and when, you understand logic, it's basic categories of fallacies, and how to construct a valid argument, you might have a chance of advancing your position. Until then, you merely persist in repeating your mantra of foolishness. Unfortunately, extreme repetition does nothing to bolster your position - it merely underscores your lack of understanding, and reveals an unwillingness to learn.
Do you think no one that has come to other theories besides yours understands logic?
And how do we know this to be true? You still have not provided us with any evidence (analogy notwithstanding). As you require of us in item #2 You can't show any example of it being created without intelligence or design. You can't show us any example of it being created with intelligence and design.
DNA creates DNA by using its genetic information (intelligence), thus intelligence can create DNA.
No. This is an Argument from Ignorance. Even if you could disprove evolution (which you have not), that is not equivalent to providing evidence FOR ID. You can rephrase your argument a million different ways, but until you provide positive evidence in support of Intelligent Design, you have done nothing to further your position.
Can you prove evolution positive, other than presenting countless theories and hypotheses about what the data shows, when the data can be interpreted just as easily in other ways.
DNA cannot be created naturally
This is true. It has never been observed and the facts show that molecules that must be formed for life dont naturally get together. They make other things, other ways. I have not seen any chemistry information that shows that the parts of life join together naturally. The fact is they hate it, the refuse it, and if they did it wouldnt last more than a second or two; and that is only with the individual parts of it, which there are many parts that hate to form what is required for life. The molecules required would need to all be forced to join to make the correct things for life, the things would need to come together properly, and they would need to be in an environment that wouldnt destroy them. Such conditions are absolutely unthinkable. The figures given on how probable it is for this to happen are used to say that there is a chance. The fact it that when conditions are made the same probability is always present. It doesnt change just because there is more space, or because the same options were present in other places. If the probability is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. then if it there are 999,999,999,999,999,999,999 tests the probability isnt 1 in 1 in the last test. It is still 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Do you recognize this?
I'm not palying any sort of game. You merely refuse to argue logically, and instead tell me what I'm arguing. This is never entirely what I said, so there is always something for you to bash in it, even if the thing you choose to bash wasn't present in my original argument.
Hey, that is what you guys have been doing. Isnt that nice of you.
so all the parts of DNA are known to form natually. Amino Acids, protiens, self replicating protiens (ie prions) and so on... so why is the formation of DNA with natual means impossible?
No. I have not read anything that shows that the things required for life can at all form together. If you have found such data please post a link for me.
Because he doesn't want it to be?
Oh, now your speculating on how a conclusion was reached. Stick to speculating on your own mind and conclusions. Unless previously stated, what he wants and the way he comes to a conclusion can only be speculated on and thus the opinions should be kept to yourself. This is not a place for mental speculation. It is a place for discussion threw showing data and interpreting it.