Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[OldWiseGuy]

But no farther, huh?

No need to go much farther now that God is in the picture.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Butterfly wings are a particularly bad example to use if you want to make an argument from incredulity. There have not only been hundreds of studies on them, because they are beautiful AND fascinating, but researchers have shown that butterflies can develop radically different pigmentation patterns in as few as six generations and that there are an array of very basic genetic 'switches' that can lead to rapid changes in pattern and colour.

Describe the evolution of these 'basic genetic switches'. And how these switches change colors and patterns. In fact I would like to see a simple diagram of how evolution works that includes all the processes and materials needed. A complete breakdown of how a fish becomes a horse would be helpful. Also how evolution was able to bridge the periods of global destruction without missing a beat.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Baloney. How does a twin nested hierarchy lead to the conclusion of supernatural magic?

The utter impossibility of it happening any other way. When the odds are so staggeringly against something it enters the realm of the impossible.

 

[Freodin]

The utter impossibility of it happening any other way. When the odds are so staggeringly against something it enters the realm of the impossible.

You know that you cannot evade this problem by introducing another variable that you define as "able to do anything"?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You know that you cannot evade this problem by introducing another variable that you define as "able to do anything"?

Sorry, I don't understand your point here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So it isn't science?

I can't bring myself to classify this response as anything but trolling.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The utter impossibility of it happening any other way. When the odds are so staggeringly against something it enters the realm of the impossible.

Even if evolution is proven false later today, it doesn't make your magical assertions correct by default.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'd just curious what the product of abiogenesis was.

More specifically, what its binominal was.

'Binomial' means 'having two names' (or, in algebra, the sum of two terms). What do you mean by "what its binominal was" ?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Even if evolution is proven false later today, it doesn't make your magical assertions correct by default.

Well it would be the 'last man standing' wouldn't it?

 

[Freodin]

Sorry, I don't understand your point here.

You see a problem, a complex problem with a lot of unknown factors, and, based on your limited knowlegde, declare it "impossible". Fine.

That can only lead you to the position of "I don't know." though.

But when you then see "[n]o need to go much farther now that God is in the picture.", you claim a different position. One that deliberately excludes even attempting explanations... because your main "explanation" is "God did it. God can do it. Case closed."

Basically, you have made up an explanation that fits everything... and thus explains nothing.

You might think that this is a sign of "faith" and a laudable position for someone to hold. But even you, in your daily life, deny this position constantly.

 

[Freodin]

Well it would be the 'last man standing' wouldn't it?

There is an infinite number of potentially unfalsifiable positions. If you wait for "last man standing", you will wait a looooooong time.

 

[Loudmouth]

My belief based reality works just fine. If there were more people like me the world would be a better place (less litter, etc.).

If a Geocentrist picked up trash on the street, would that mean the Sun orbits the Earth?

 

[Loudmouth]

No need to go much farther now that God is in the picture.

Then show us a picture of God.

 

[Loudmouth]

The utter impossibility of it happening any other way. When the odds are so staggeringly against something it enters the realm of the impossible.

How does the twin nested hierarchy lead to that conclusion?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well it would be the 'last man standing' wouldn't it?

No, it would not.

You'ld still have to demonstrate that there is even a man in the first place AND that he's standing.

You haven't done this. You merely claimed it.

This is typical of creationism / ID.
Their "evidence" consists entirely of trying to poke holes in other ideas.
That's what we call "negative evidence".

Again: lacking ANY alternatives, your assertions don't become acceptable by default.
You are still required to demonstrate / justify / support your own claims.

If you wish to argue against that.... consider the following absurd example, to clarify the point....

Suppose we have NO explanation for the day/night cycle. For some reason, we are unaware that this is the result of the earth rotating on its own axis.

So, we have NO explanation.

I then claim that there is a supernatural unicorn that runs across the sky, and pulls the sun by a set of supernatural cables.

Does my claim become an acceptable claim, simply because there is no alternative?
Or would I be required to actually provide positive evidence in support of my assertion?


Essentially, what you are saying is no more or less then an argument from ignorance.
Because when it is pointed out that you need to support your claim, you are saying "well, how else would you explain it?"

That's quite literally "I don't know, therefor this".

 

[Freodin]

Assertion: there is a natural, unguided, unguiding, unaiming process that allows evolution to work.
Conclusion: evolution works!

That, basically, is the theistic line of reasoning. We should just adopt it and see creationism wither away.

Shouldn't we?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, it would not.

You'ld still have to demonstrate that there is even a man in the first place AND that he's standing.

You haven't done this. You merely claimed it.

This is typical of creationism / ID.
Their "evidence" consists entirely of trying to poke holes in other ideas.
That's what we call "negative evidence".

Again: lacking ANY alternatives, your assertions don't become acceptable by default.
You are still required to demonstrate / justify / support your own claims.

If you wish to argue against that.... consider the following absurd example, to clarify the point....

Suppose we have NO explanation for the day/night cycle. For some reason, we are unaware that this is the result of the earth rotating on its own axis.

So, we have NO explanation.

I then claim that there is a supernatural unicorn that runs across the sky, and pulls the sun by a set of supernatural cables.

Does my claim become an acceptable claim, simply because there is no alternative?
Or would I be required to actually provide positive evidence in support of my assertion?


Essentially, what you are saying is no more or less then an argument from ignorance.
Because when it is pointed out that you need to support your claim, you are saying "well, how else would you explain it?"

That's quite literally "I don't know, therefor this".

If evolution can't support itself with details why should creationists?

 

[Speedwell]

Assertion: there is a natural, unguided, unguiding, unaiming process that allows evolution to work.
Conclusion: evolution works!

That, basically, is the theistic line of reasoning. We should just adopt it and see creationism wither away.

Shouldn't we?

That's what Creationists think we have done, alas.

 

[Loudmouth]

If evolution can't support itself with details why should creationists?

The theory of evolution does have the details that creationism lacks, such as testable and observable mechanisms.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How does the twin nested hierarchy lead to that conclusion?

Here's how I see such details.

One sees a beautiful picture (of whatever). The creationist believes it was completed at one time by an artist. The evolutionist cuts the picture into millions of pieces and claims the picture was produced one piece at a time over millions of years.

But if evolution as it is presented is true the picture has to be literally ground to dust and assembled a molecule at a time, not in great big chunks as is presented in most descriptions of the process.

That's why I assert that explanations of the theory are simplistic.