Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Speedwell]

here is a simple way to detect design in most cases: the chance of that object to be the result of a natural process. we know for instance that the chance for a car to be the result of a natural process is radically low. therefore we can detect design when we see a car since a natural procoess cant explain how such a car can evolve naturally.

And your evidence for this assertion is...?

 

[xianghua]

If cats would evolve into dogs, then evolution theory would be false.

Cats will evolve into sub-species of cats. These new sub-species would still be cats.All the descendents of felines, will be felines

so even after billions of years of such a proceoss the cat will still be a cat? what can i say: maybe the ignorance isnt from my side after all.

 

[xianghua]

How is that evidence?

a spinning motor isnt evidence for design? so why a car is?

 

[Speedwell]

Define proof.

The valid conclusion of an axiomatic formal system.

I already told you what the theory was. I dumed the whole thing down as much as I possibly could.

All you have is an observation--paper burns in the flame of a torch. What is your explanation?

 

[Speedwell]

a spinning motor isnt evidence for design? so why a car is?

A car is only evidence of design if it is a man-made car.

 

[xianghua]

Just because you really really want something to be true doesnt make it so.

Read the Dover trials transcript if you want to see this flagellum ID debunked in detail.

If you want to challange established science the way to do so is a paper for peer-review. If you cant do that, you dont matter and your views are simply worthless.

but i already showed that this claim is false (base on scientific facts which base on scientific papers). so why should i need more papers?

 

[DogmaHunter]

but a truck has a bigger wheels. this is an actual data.

And bats use wings for flight.
And penguins don't.

Your extremely superficial dataset is ridiculously incomplete.

 

[Speedwell]

if you see no evidence for desing in a motor then we cant detect evidence for design in a car too.

I see evidence for design in man-made motors.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The valid conclusion of an axiomatic formal system.

That didn't show up in the dictionaries I checked, nothing even close. Did you get that from the same place you got that science doesn't provide proof? Anyway, what's the difference between that and what the dictionary did say here:

Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

All you have is an observation--paper burns in the flame of a torch. What is your explanation?

Then the observation that the paper burns, or put more simply, seeing the paper burn, is not proof the paper burns? And if not, why?

 

[VirOptimus]

but i already showed that this claim is false (base on scientific facts which base on scientific papers). so why should i need more papers?

You have not shown anything. You have made a lot of baseless claims however.

Write an article for peer-review if you want to challange rhe established science.

 

[VirOptimus]

here is a simple way to detect design in most cases: the chance of that object to be the result of a natural process. we know for instance that the chance for a car to be the result of a natural process is radically low. therefore we can detect design when we see a car since a natural procoess cant explain how such a car can evolve naturally.

Present the math then.

 

[Jimmy D]

Then the observation that the paper burns, or put more simply, seeing the paper burn, is not proof the paper burns? And if not, why?

So now you think an observation is a theory?

"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly."

 

[tas8831]

a spinning motor isnt evidence for design? so why a car is?

Because flagellar "motors" and the like are organic molecules reacting to concentration gradients or shape changes.

A car's motor is made of metal by humans.

Robot Penguin proves evolution!

 

[Kenny'sID]

So now you think an observation is a theory?

What gave you that idea?

Just answer the questions please, seems no one else will.

 

[Snappy1]

Just answer the questions please, seems no one else will.

Ha!

 

[Kenny'sID]

Ha!

Nothing there either.

 

[Roseonathorn]

I believe God created the heavens the angels, also the that rebelled and fell away, and the universe, the earth, seas and the first two humans, the first animals and science has not convinced me otherwise.

 

[Speedwell]

That didn't show up in the dictionaries I checked, nothing even close. Did you get that from the same place you got that science doesn't provide proof? Anyway, what's the difference between that and what the dictionary did say here:

Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

That is the coloquial definition of "proof" no doubt from a popular dictionary. The techical definition has been presented to you often enough-with sources--that we can be reasonably sure you are not being honest about it.

But your definition is not a bad one; it encompasses both the evidence required by the inductive logic of science and the argument required by the deductive logic of axiomatic formal systems. The question is, which kind of "proof" do you want?

Then the observation that the paper burns, or put more simply, seeing the paper burn, is not proof the paper burns? And if not, why?

Yes, paper burns; that's very observant of you. Why does it burn? What's your theory?

 

[tas8831]

I believe God created the heavens the angels, also the that rebelled and fell away, and the universe, the earth, seas and the first two humans, the first animals and science has not convinced me otherwise.

Thats nice.

How much of the science are you actually familiar with?

 

[Traveler 1]

Well this is one subject that always drags on. But for my contribution;
Higher life forms require 2 sexes to reproduce. This provides a self repair mechanism where any variation that can be considered a mutation is repaired at the conception of the next generation. Thus preventing any traits from a mutation from being passed along.
Natural selection may explain which species will survive but evolution itself is a none starter.