Evolution is mathematically impossible

[pitabread]

Function.

That's a bit vague.

How are you connecting function to design?

 

[Ophiolite]

I commented at the weekend that my father has the appearance of a Yeti, with his curly hair and beard

Great opportunity here, if your father is up for it. Two weeks in Washington State with an HD video camera. Another two weeks of film editing, then we make a fortune on the Big Foot lecture circuit!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ok, I'll try slower this time. You i-n-f-e-r design, you do not s-e-e design.

I’ll say it even slower once again.... We s-e-e design. You then I-n-f-e-r the design you see is not what you see.....

In fact, Dawkins was so aware of its obviousness he had to theorize aliens might have done it to avoid the obvious conclusion of God.....

The faker then had to go so far as try to imply that was a creationist tactic when a google search brings up only him for that ploy....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No he didn't.

I commented at the weekend that my father has the appearance of a Yeti, with his curly hair and beard.... that doesn't mean I saw a Yeti, or that I think that he is a Yeti.

It's no wonder you get so confused when your reading comprehension is so inadequate.

I’ll ask again. Do you believe in Yeti’s? Folklore, mythology?????

How do you know what a Yeti looks like except to infer it from your imagination...

It goes along with the abominable snowman and Bigfoot.....

Don’t try to be coy and all of a sudden pretend you can’t comprehend what I meant. Such a sad ploy that should be beneath you, but apparently nothing is....

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's a bit vague.

How are you connecting function to design?

Without design nothing functions...as designed.

 

[pitabread]

Without design nothing functions...as designed.

Ah, so it's just circular reasoning. Gotcha.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ah, so it's just circular reasoning. Gotcha.

It is sorta. Closes the loop.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I’ll say it even slower once again.... We s-e-e design. You then I-n-f-e-r the design you see is not what you see.....

In fact, Dawkins was so aware of its obviousness he had to theorize aliens might have done it to avoid the obvious conclusion of God.....

The faker then had to go so far as try to imply that was a creationist tactic when a google search brings up only him for that ploy....

Lol. Yet another example of your lack of understanding. Keep them coming champ!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Lol. Yet another example of your lack of understanding. Keep them coming champ!

Count on it, you be sure to keep your ad-hominem attacks coming, its about all you can do....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ah, so it's just circular reasoning. Gotcha.

Sort of like arguing it’s all random but just appears designed by random chance?

 

[Ophiolite]

Sort of like arguing it’s all random but just appears designed by random chance?

The reason you see ad hominems on so many posts (in much the same way as you see design) is that you repeatedly fail to understand the facts and the evidence when these are presented to you. And they have been presented in a variety of ways, by a variety of people, so there is no sound reason why you should not have recognised them.

Having presented the evidence and refuted your unsupported assertions on multiple occassions, futher repetition seems pointless and members turn to look for explanations for your behaviour. These appear boil down to the following:
1. You understand the evidence is sound and profuse and feel unable to deny it, so you decry it.
2. Your faith prevents you from even giving the evidence proper consideration.
3. You are trolling.
4. You lack the education or intellect to understand the evidence.

All of these could be intrepreted as ad hominems, but all arise from your decision, for whatever reason, to ignore, or pretend to refute the evidence. Start taking the evidence seriously. Start presenting reasoned, well-supported arguments against the evidence, rather than bland denials and you may find your posts are treated with more respect and your arguments with more attention.

 

[pitabread]

It is sorta. Closes the loop.

You do know that circular reasoning is a fallacy, yes?

IOW, it doesn't actually provide support for what you are claiming.

 

[pitabread]

Sort of like arguing it’s all random but just appears designed by random chance?

Nobody is arguing everything is "all random". That appears to be a strawman of your own making.

Further, just because something appears to not be purely random does not automatically imply intelligent design. If you want to argue the latter, you'll have to construct a better argument than anything that has been presented before.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The reason you see ad hominems on so many posts (in much the same way as you see design) is that you repeatedly fail to understand the facts and the evidence when these are presented to you. And they have been presented in a variety of ways, by a variety of people, so there is no sound reason why you should not have recognised them.

That’s what you keep saying to justify the ad-hominem attacks which is nothing but the desperation of people that are wrong and know it..... and unable to defend their claims.....

Having presented the evidence and refuted your unsupported assertions on multiple occassions, futher repetition seems pointless and members turn to look for explanations for your behaviour. These appear boil down to the following:
1. You understand the evidence is sound and profuse and feel unable to deny it, so you decry it.
2. Your faith prevents you from even giving the evidence proper consideration.
3. You are trolling.
4. You lack the education or intellect to understand the evidence.

So you keep saying and yet never actually present any evidence. Just keep claiming you present it.

All of these could be intrepreted as ad hominems, but all arise from your decision, for whatever reason, to ignore, or pretend to refute the evidence. Start taking the evidence seriously. Start presenting reasoned, well-supported arguments against the evidence, rather than bland denials and you may find your posts are treated with more respect and your arguments with more attention.

No, they were not ad-hominem, just the desperate attempt of someone suffering from cognitive dissonance who hasn’t presented any evidence that hasn’t then been refuted, but can’t see the refutation because the cognitive dissonance blinds them to it....

Now some may take that as an ad-hominem attack as well.....

Well supported? The entire fossil record shows every creature doesn’t change for its entire span of existence.

It’s YOU that relays on “missing” common ancestors to back his claim, not me....

It’s your expert that sees design then claims aliens must have done it, then argues their is no design..... in his mind it’s ok if aliens designed man, it’s not the design he has a problem with..... just the designer..... as long as they came from natural random causes....

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Count on it, you be sure to keep your ad-hominem attacks coming, its about all you can do....

I know this has been explained to you before, but I'll do it again. Pointing out your failure to understand a subject is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is an attack on a person's character.

You repeatedly make this mistake despite frequent correction. This only serves to reinforce the perception of your lack of understanding.

 

[pitabread]

1. You understand the evidence is sound and profuse and feel unable to deny it, so you decry it.
2. Your faith prevents you from even giving the evidence proper consideration.
3. You are trolling.
4. You lack the education or intellect to understand the evidence.

Given the correlation between creationist beliefs, lack of understanding of science and lack of educational attainment, #4 certainly seems to run true given a lot of creationist posts on this forum. Although #2 is also probably at work since I also routinely see strong resistance from creationists to getting an education on the subject to begin with.

It's the unfortunate catch-22 that seems to be the situation with creationism.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nobody is arguing everything is "all random". That appears to be a strawman of your own making.

Further, just because something appears to not be purely random does not automatically imply intelligent design. If you want to argue the latter, you'll have to construct a better argument than anything that has been presented before.

If it’s not random then it’s designed.

I see no other option you presented....

Not purely random? There doesn’t appear to be any randomness at all. The entire universe can be written in mathematical laws that we can rely on day after day after day. What you take for randomness is simply being unable to account for all the variables at work.....

You don’t even really believe it’s random or you wouldn’t try to explain it, as pure randomness has no explanation..... it’s random..... no one really believes it despite their claims to the contrary. It’s pure PR as what good is trying to write laws for a lawless universe.....

Accept it or not but it’s why you have the science we do today, because people expected to be able to explain a designed universe and so looked for the laws governing it.

Not a single scientist sets out hoping he’ll get lucky and all the randomness will just fall together so he can logically explain random illogic..... there exists no pattern to randomness....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I know this has been explained to you before, but I'll do it again. Pointing out your failure to understand a subject is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is an attack on a person's character.

You repeatedly make this mistake despite frequent correction. This only serves to reinforce the perception of your lack of understanding.

You frequently post comments of no relevance to the subject at hand. By frequently that means every post.....

Your out of your depth and your ego response is to blame the other guy for his lack of understanding while saying nothing....

 

[pitabread]

If it’s not random then it’s designed.

That's not a valid dichotomy. Not unless you are redefining "random".

The entire universe can be written in mathematical laws that we can rely on day after day after day.

To be fair, we don't have *that* level an understanding of the universe.

That said, just because something isn't purely random doesn't automatically mean it has an intelligent creator. When talking about the universe as a whole, we simply don't have enough information to make that claim.

 

[Ophiolite]

Given the correlation between creationist beliefs, lack of understanding of science and lack of educational attainment, #4 certainly seems to run true given a lot of creationist posts on this forum. Although #2 is also probably at work since I also routinely see strong resistance from creationists to getting an education on the subject to begin with.

It's the unfortunate catch-22 that seems to be the situation with creationism.

I can respect #2 when it is honestly conceded.

An argument can be made that revelation, or introspection can provide answers that science cannot. The argument can be extended to suggest that what is revealed in this way, or ascertained through faith, is more relevant than something gathered by a methodology that at its heart is perpetually revisionist (even when that is its great strength).

I don't agree with those arguments, but I recognise their value and respect the individuals who make them. Thus I take my hat of to any creationist who says "look, I know the evidence points towards the reality of evolution, but my reading of Scripture combined with my personal experience of God cause me to reject it." Unfortunately what see instead is ludicrous attempts to deny the science, attempts that lack substance and sanity. I cannot respect that approach.