Evolution Gap - Where's the Fur? Redux

by shadow 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cofty

  picking out one paper and saying that it had the facts to answer the question posted. A question so simple that a schoolchild could answer it.

  The paper I posted does answer the question. A schoolchild should be able to answer it.

  In order to rule out creationism it is not necessary to show the definitive answer to a specific challenge. Let's say you come across a stone arch for the first time in your life. You have no idea how it could be built because it would obviously fall down at every stage until the keystone is in place. Therefore you conclude that god made it. In order to prove that you are wrong I only have to demonstrate one possible naturalistic answer. I might show how it could be built using a wooden scaffold that was then dismantled. It doesn't matter at all if somebody else insists that it was built using a mound of sand and somebody else is certain it was built using a pile of earth.

  Any naturalistic answer that works proves that supernatural answers are unnecessary.

  The same goes for your rather odd objection that the loss of hair contradicts evolution. You have listed 12 reasons - any one of which proves you are resorting to superstitions. Well done!

  Science has transformed the world for the better. It really works. It makes predictions and tests them. It does everything possible to disprove its own assumptions and throws out what doesn't work. It is based on methodological naturalism.

  In other words every mystery ever solved turned out not to be magic.
• 

  cofty

  there are a lot more examples in support of creation but no doubt you will say none of them have any merit

  Bring them on and we will see. In years of studying the subject and thoroughly examining all sorts of objections to evolution I have yet to find one that wasn't facile.

  So it's two fails out of two.

  Maybe you could stick to facts and cut out the ad hominem?
  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  This is indeed the problem with viewing "facts" as fixed and proven entities. There are no facts outside of context. There are no facts that are immune to revision.
• 

  cofty

  Yawn
• 

  cofty

  rules of common courtesy are tossed out and attacks fly back and forth so much that any possibility of civil discussion is eliminated - Shadow

  Go back and read my 38 threads on the Evolution is a Fact series. Observe the frequent personal attacks and insults I receive from a collection of Jesus' buddies, and then notice that I never retaliate.

  Like many people you see vitriol on a thread and lazily assume both sides are as bad as each other.

  Why would I resort to personal attacks when I have facts on my side?
  
  
• 

  shadow

  cofty, I'm not a psychologist so I can't tell you why you would resort to personal attacks. Or maybe you don't consider them personal attacks and others do. You just called me and many people lazy and the next line is why would you resort to personal attacks. Maybe just a statement of fact? Hmmmmmmmmm . . . . . . . . .

  see how we're off topic?
• 

  cofty

  I can't tell you why you would resort to personal attacks

  I never do.

  maybe you don't consider them personal attacks and others do

  Believers and creationists consider attacks on their superstitions as personal attacks. That's their problem.

  You just called me and many people lazy

  It was a statement of fact. The intellectual laziness of many believers I have encountered on this forum is really astonishing.

  see how we're off topic?

  Yes, you did that because you don't have any facts.
  
  
  
  
  
• 

  scratchme1010

  Using terms like "stupid" in your posts doesn't make what you want to say any (a) believable, (b) true, (c) compelling.
• 

  cofty

  Here is the point you need to address...

  In order to rule out creationism it is not necessary to show the definitive answer to a specific challenge. Let's say you come across a stone arch for the first time in your life. You have no idea how it could be built because it would obviously fall down at every stage until the keystone is in place. Therefore you conclude that god made it. In order to prove that you are wrong I only have to demonstrate one possible naturalistic answer. I might show how it could be built using a wooden scaffold that was then dismantled. It doesn't matter at all if somebody else insists that it was built using a mound of sand and somebody else is certain it was built using a pile of earth. If there are 12 possible solutions that all work then there are 12 reasons why supernatural answers can safely be ignored.

  Any naturalistic answer that works proves that supernatural answers are unnecessary.

  The same goes for your rather odd objection that the loss of hair contradicts evolution. You have listed 12 reasons - any one of which proves you are resorting to superstitions. Well done!
• 

  cofty

  Using terms like "stupid" in your posts doesn't make what you want to say - scratchme

  Who are you referring to?