Evolution is mathematically impossible

[OldWiseGuy]

You infer design, you don't see it.

I 'see' design by perusing anatomy books. The more I read the more I wonder how anyone cannot see purposeful design.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I 'see' design by perusing anatomy books. The more I read the more I wonder how anyone cannot see purposeful design.

Do I need to say this slower or louder? Louder is much easier on the internets, so I'll give that a go: You INFER design, you do not SEE design.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So show us.... don't just make wild claims.

Why are creationist "scientists" so inept / lazy / dishonest?

It’s why they don’t use DNA tests proven to show relation, but use random matching by algorithms to “claim” relation.

But go ahead, why don’t your biologists with all their resources use the known test that has been proven and upheld in courts of law if any relation actually exists??????

YOU need to show that an unproven random matching test done by algorithms is valid in proving relationships, not me. I am not the one claiming it’s accurate, you are.....

I await your results....

The onus is on the one making the positive claim that his test is valid....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do I need to say this slower or louder? Louder is much easier on the internets, so I'll give that a go: You INFER design, you do not SEE design.

And yet “the appearance of design” is what everyone is trying to explain on both sides.....

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}”

Even Dakins understood he “saw” design, he certainly didn’t infer it, he just wanted a different explanation for what his eyes and other senses told him was true....

So if we don’t see it, why would it appear that way????

 

[Jimmy D]

It’s why the don’t use DNA tests proven to show relation, but use random matching by algorithms to “claim” relation.

But go ahead, why don’t your biologists with all their resources use the known test that has been proven and upheld in courts of law if any relation actually exists??????

YOU need to show that an unproven random matching test done by algorithms is valid in proving relationships, not me. I am not the one claiming it’s accurate, you are.....

I await your results....

The onus is on the one making the positive claim that his test is valid....

Save your obfuscation and demonstrate your assertion....

"doing DNA testing that we know works for relationships is devastating to their theory and claims...."

 

[Jimmy D]

And yet “the appearance of design” is what everyone is trying to explain on both sides.....

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}”

Even Dakins understood he “saw” design, he certainly didn’t infer it, he just wanted a different explanation for what his eyes and other senses told him was true....

So if we don’t see it, why would it appear that way????

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.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And yet “the appearance of design” is what everyone is trying to explain on both sides.....

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}”

Even Dakins understood he “saw” design, he certainly didn’t infer it, he just wanted a different explanation for what his eyes and other senses told him was true....

So if we don’t see it, why would it appear that way????

Let's just add English to the list of things you don't really understand but feel in a position to comment on, shall we?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Save your obfuscation and demonstrate your assertion....

"doing DNA testing that we know works for relationships is devastating to their theory and claims...."

And hence you don’t use it, do you???

Instead you keep claiming another test that has never been proven to show relationship shows relationship.

While refusing to use the one that has been proven.....

So ask yourself, why aren’t they using it, it would squash all creationists claims. Yet they don’t....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Let's just add English to the list of things you don't really understand but feel in a position to comment on, shall we?

Let’s just add refusing to address the post and obfuscating into ad-hominem attacks your only option to avoid, shall we?

 

[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.

How would you know? Are you claiming Yeti,s are real and you have seen one to know what one “appears” like? Or are you the one simply “inferring” based upon your imagination????

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Let’s just add refusing to address the post and obfuscating into ad-hominem attacks your only option to avoid, shall we?

No, let's not. Your post did not address the one it was replying to because you obviously do not understand the difference between "infer" and "see". Yet you thought you were in a position to comment on the thing you do not understand.

We already knew you don't know what an ad hominem attack is, but if we didn't we could now add that to the list, couldn't we?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, let's not. Your post did not address the one it was replying to because you obviously do not understand the difference between "infer" and "see". Yet you thought you were in a position to comment on the thing you do not understand.

We already knew you don't know what an ad hominem attack is, but if we didn't we could now add that to the list, couldn't we?

Oh I understand perfectly. It’s simply you that thinks inferring the beginning is “seeing” it, and can’t admit that if you can’t detect it you can’t know it.

We once inferredcelectrons were particles. We now infer they are waves. Since we have never “seen” one we will not know, just infer until we do.

I’ll ask again and you will avoid again.

How do you propose we detect something at over 13 billion light years distance if not by light which took 13 billion years to reach us?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Oh I understand perfectly. It’s simply you that thinks inferring the beginning is “seeing” it, and can’t admit that if you can’t detect it you can’t know it.

We once inferredcelectrons were particles. We now infer they are waves. Since we have never “seen” one we will not know, just infer until we do.

I’ll ask again and you will avoid again.

How do you propose we detect something at over 13 billion light years distance if not by light which took 13 billion years to reach us?

Wrong thread.

Awesome work justa!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Do I need to say this slower or louder? Louder is much easier on the internets, so I'll give that a go: You INFER design, you do not SEE design.

See = perceive, conclude, understand. And this from the technical description of function more than appearance. Organisms are just blobs tissue until one understand how they work. Then one "sees" design.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

See = perceive, conclude, understand. And this from the technical description of function more than appearance. Organisms are just blobs tissue until one understand how they work. Then one "sees" design.

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

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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

Sure, that too, why not.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Sure, that too, why not.

I notice that in your previous post you supplied a definition of see, but not of infer. Do you understand the difference? Perhaps you could learn something new today?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I notice that in your previous post you supplied a definition of see, but not of infer. Do you understand the difference? Perhaps you could learn something new today?

All these terms suggest one's "takeaway". My takeaway is design.

 

[pitabread]

All these terms suggest one's "takeaway". My takeaway is design.

Based on what?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Based on what?

Function.