Posts by WhatshallIcallmyself

114

Evidence for a Young Earth

by Perry in

for additional information:.

Again, the hassle of dealing with claims made by someone who has not bothered to actually learn about the subject they are commenting on... Perry, virtually every post you make only proves you know so little about the subjects you talk about that you actually think what you post is correct and relevant to the discussion! Either that or you are a troll; it is truly hard to decide which you are.

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"Whence evil? Now, I've got another one: Why evil?" - snowbird

Evil is subjective. It is just how an individual sees a situation. It's nothing more than a descriptive observation that is born of an evolved mind. It is not a question that needs answering in this topic's context...

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"I believe God created ..." - snowbird

You can believe what you want about anything. It's when you start asserting these beliefs as reality against all rational evidence that you will find people objecting....

"But, you will never accept that, will you?" - snowbird

Of course I accept that you believe that. You seem to have ran off down a side alley instead of addressing the points I was making about how it is illogical to insist life is designed....

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"???" - snowbird

If you wish to assert something like the cell is designed, rather than the product of non-guided process you either have to bring the designer forwards to explain how it was all done (or to simply say "yeah it was me, good eh?") or demonstrate that there is no natural process that could bring it about.

For the latter you would have to know everything so as to not overlook a potential natural process. You can't just say "I can't think of an explanation therefore..." or "I can't see how it could have happened naturally..." because that is nothing more than an argument from ignorance/incredulity and as such is logically flawed.

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"What about the evidence of obvious design being presented by Vidquin?" - snowbird

How can it be obvious when you don't know how everything in the universe came to be? The position you have taken is to go from not knowing something to asserting something based on not knowing anything in the first place.

In order to state these things are designed you would need to offer evidence that these things cannot appear naturally; without divine guidance. In order to do that you need to understand everything about this universe because if you don't then there is always a chance that you have over-looked something. Don't forget, you aren't offering evidence for design here, you are instead stating that because something "looks" designed then it must be designed.

When these things are eventually explained away where will you then go to still insist this god of yours exists? Your gaps are getting smaller by the day.

47

Evolution is a Fact #37 - Testicles

by cofty in

take a look at the back of your tv/entertainment centre.

a mass of power and signal cables connect the various pieces of equipment in very specific ways.

imagine you wanted to switch the locations of your satellite receiver and your dvd player.

WhatshallIcallmyself

Its called the concept of design. Its simple. A house needs an architect and a builder. It doesn't appear out of the blue. It was designed by somebody. It was built by somebody. That's not to complicated, is it? A living cell is much more complex. It also needs a designer and a builder. I know, evolutionists struggle with the concept. Sorry about that. - Vidqun

I struggle with logical fallacies. The one you present here is the non sequitur variant. Perhaps you don't understand what I mean? I don't care! I'm not your mother...

47

Evolution is a Fact #37 - Testicles

by cofty in

take a look at the back of your tv/entertainment centre.

a mass of power and signal cables connect the various pieces of equipment in very specific ways.

imagine you wanted to switch the locations of your satellite receiver and your dvd player.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"Do you really believe the reproductive system of living things came about by itself and then merged to improve itself?" - Vidqun

Nobody believes that. Except creationists of course.

"By the way, man with the most advanced laboratories, cannot replicate a sperm or egg cell, much less a gonad. If they could, the need for fertility clinics would become something of the past" - Vidqun

What has that got to do with this discussion? Evolution is not reliant on what humans can or cannot do. That should be obvious really...

114

Evidence for a Young Earth

by Perry in

for additional information:.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"Take this example for instance" - Perry

Here we are talking about evolution or geology and there you are linking us to a journal editor who is worried about the state of pharmaceutical research.

Do you not realise that in one fell swoop you have both shown exactly how well peer review works (the editor is openly stating there is a problem) and that you think pharmaceutical research is something relevant to this conversation. You are meant to be arguing against, not for!

"How is the average person supposed to know which half is true and which half isn't ?" - Perry

You rely on the experts in whatever field is relevant to the question at hand. The consensus amongst the scientific community is what counts. And let me make it clear to you that this consensus is not reached by sitting down and debating the "evidence". A consensus is established when numerous avenues of research all interconnect, mutually supporting each other and demonstrating that the underlying idea is sound.

114

Evidence for a Young Earth

by Perry in

for additional information:.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"People interpret those facts differently, plain and simple." - Perry

People can only interpret facts if they are aware of all the other facts that go with the initial fact. This is where creationists diverge from scientists. The scientist interprets a set of related facts and the conclusion is drawn from where all the evidence leads whereas the creationist will interpret certain facts whilst ignoring all those that refute their desired conclusion.

"The tendency is to attack anothers interpretation of the facts and call that interpretation not science, psuedo science, fairy tale etc.," - Perry

If the conclusion is drawn from a limited data set that supports the conclusion whilst ignoring everything else that disagrees then yes, that is not science etc... If you claim to be a scientist and behave in that manner (Henry Morris et al...) then you will rightly be called on that.

"when in fact many times interpretation, especially theoretical interpretation, is a process of the mind and not a falsifiable conclusion." - Perry

Then it isn't science.... Stop pretending it is.... Science has to be falsifiable at all levels or it isn't science. I can write that last sentence in capitals, in bold, with a lovely background highlight if you are struggling to understand that simple concept.

114

Evidence for a Young Earth

by Perry in

for additional information:.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"Many scientists are skeptical of evolution and a number publicly believe in a literal 6-Day Creation. Many more likely do dissent from the standard Materialistic paradigm, but suppress it due to job discrimination."

All scientists are sceptical of everything, not just evolution; that is what makes a scientist successful and is what ensures any nonsense is quickly filtered out. That is, in essence, the scientific method. Anyone trained in a field of science understands this well due to the learning that has taken place on the road to their qualification i.e. you don't just learn about a subject.

What a scientist believes is irrelevant. They are free to believe what they like but the work they do (science) is based on the scientific method and therefore is removed from personal beliefs (something a trained persons knows...).

Therefore we can see that assertions of job discrimination due to personal beliefs are nonsense because if someone is working as a scientist and working correctly as per the scientific method then their personal beliefs are completely removed from their work. If they want to test those beliefs using the scientific method then, again, there will be no issue. Problems arise when people what to ignore the scientific method and have their beliefs accepted as scientific truths without the usual hassle of actually having to work to show how you arrive at those conclusions.