What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[HitchSlap]

Then show me one.

You wouldn’t comprehend.

 

[HitchSlap]

Then she's not "missing," is she?

You do realize that every missing link found produces two more missing links, don't you?

QED

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Philosophy of Science 101.

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions, on the one hand, and with our views about human free action on the other.​

As noted, QM challenges the principle. We await evo's to catch up on their reading.

And so another google because you don't really understand, at least you gave a link this time. And from that link, the whole paragraph.
"Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. The idea is ancient, but first became subject to clarification and mathematical analysis in the eighteenth century. Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions, on the one hand, and with our views about human free action on the other. In both of these general areas there is no agreement over whether determinism is true (or even whether it can be known true or false), and what the import for human agency would be in either case." My bold.

Determinism, in the philosophical sense is not a principle of science. Science observes that there is regularity in our observation of the world. Given that, we can hypothesize as to relations between these observations. The more we observe these relations the more we conclude they have useful validity and can use these hypotheses to create more extensive hypotheses. Large collections of very extensively confirmed hypotheses can become theories.

Finally parsimony is just the idea that simple solutions that explain all the data are more useful than more complicated solutions that do the same thing. The idea that the sun rises in the east is sufficiently explained by the rotation of the earth without positing djinns dragging the earth around.

 

[AV1611VET]

QED

QV:

Although the discovery of a missing link is cause for celebration, it is also cause for more and deeper studies. Ironically, even as one link is found, two new missing links are "created"—one the immediate ancestor and one the immediate descendent of the newly found creature.

SOURCE

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody is obligated to respond to garbage.

Has a creationist ever offered up anything besides garbage?

 

[AV1611VET]

Has a creationist ever offered up anything besides garbage?

I offer up nothing to begin with.

 

[Astrid]

Has a creationist ever offered up anything besides garbage?

We won't ever see any facts contrary to ToE but
what comes from some creos is beneath human dignity.

And isn't nobody has to encourage it with responses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I offer up nothing to begin with.

You are not fooling anyone. How many "challenges" have you posted? I have never seen one that was not garbage and refuted on the first page. Usually in the first response the thread was effectively dead.

 

[HitchSlap]

QV:

SOURCE

Quote mined, per usual creo tactics.

 

[Astrid]

Quote mined, per usual creo tactics.

Maybe they are so naive they think it's legit and that it will fool
someone besides themselves.
One bit of foolery that definitely won't work
Is the implied work of having actually read the
books and papers, presumably then remembering
pertinent passages proving their whatev.

 

[AV1611VET]

Has a creationist ever offered up anything besides garbage?

I offer up nothing to begin with.

You are not fooling anyone. How many "challenges" have you posted? I have never seen one that was not garbage and refuted on the first page. Usually in the first response the thread was effectively dead.

Um ... that kinda went over your head, didn't it?

I offer up nothing.

Then comes a series of miracles over a period of six days that raises that nothing (i.e., level of mass/energy) from zero to its current level today.

The process is known as: creatio ex nihilo.

Creation out of nothing.

 

[o_mlly]

In both of these general areas there is no agreement over whether determinism is true (or even whether it can be known true or false), and what the import for human agency would be in either case." My bold.

No, your "bad". You have shown the uncanny ability to grasp the obvious. That which cannot be proven must be presumed. Think about it.

The "flying monkeys" are flooding my email with their usual drivel. The lonely crudman above is just an example.

Some wonder why atheists often frequent Christian web sites but the opposite is quite rare. Lurk an atheist website for the answer: they eat their own. I suppose they export their venom here to troll the threads in vain attempts to buff up their egos. Misery loves company. Sartre was right, for the atheist, “Hell is other people”.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

No, your "bad". You have shown the uncanny ability to grasp the obvious. That which cannot be proven must be presumed. Think about it.

The "flying monkeys" are flooding my email with their usual drivel. The lonely crudman above is just an example.

Some wonder why atheists often frequent Christian web sites but the opposite is quite rare. Lurk an atheist website for the answer: they eat their own. I suppose they export their venom here to troll the threads in vain attempts to buff up their egos. Misery loves company. Sartre was right, for the atheist, “Hell is other people”.

I have and so have many others, that's why scientific theories are provisional but you presume to know the answer even when you are wrong.

By the way, I love the rest of your post that showed up when I hit the reply button.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Some wonder why atheists often frequent Christian web sites but the opposite is quite rare. Lurk an atheist website for the answer: they eat their own. I suppose they export their venom here to troll the threads in vain attempts to buff up their egos. Misery loves company. Sartre was right, for the atheist, “Hell is other people”.

I'm here to deal with the pseudoscience. That's all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Um ... that kinda went over your head, didn't it?

I offer up nothing.

Then comes a series of miracles over a period of six days that raises that nothing (i.e., level of mass/energy) from zero to its current level today.

The process is known as: creatio ex nihilo.

Creation out of nothing.

No, you offered lass than nothing. Falsehoods are negative. Now what you should be asking is how do we know that the book of Genesis cannot be read literally. At all. From head to tail it has been debunked.

 

[Astrid]

I'm here to deal with the pseudoscience. That's all.

Creationists live in a fantasy land of their
own. It's a shame to see it turn so mean spirited,
showing as it does only sonething unfortunate
about the person spewing the venom.

 

[AV1611VET]

Um ... that kinda went over your head, didn't it?

I offer up nothing.

No, you offered less than nothing.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[Astrid]

No, your "bad". You have shown the uncanny ability to grasp the obvious. That which cannot be proven must be presumed. Think about it.

The "flying monkeys" are flooding my email with their usual drivel. The lonely crudman above is just an example.

Some wonder why atheists often frequent Christian web sites but the opposite is quite rare. Lurk an atheist website for the answer: they eat their own. I suppose they export their venom here to troll the threads in vain attempts to buff up their egos. Misery loves company. Sartre was right, for the atheist, “Hell is other people”.

There's no ego anywhere to beat that of a person
who thinks he is gifted with infallible Bible reading
skill, and knows more than any researcher on earth.

Lashing out with name calling and speaking ill
of others only says something unfortunate about the
person doing it.

It might be well to examine your motives for going
into an open forum and making invidious statements.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's no ego anywhere to beat than of a person
who thinks he is gifted with infallible Bible reading skill, and knows more than any researcher on earth.

I don't think telling someone who knows more than you do that he is wrong constitutes knowing more than the person who knows more than you that you know more than he.

Put another way, a little child should be able to tell a scientist he is wrong.

All it takes is believing something's antithesis, and the details don't matter.

That's why we have people who've never read the Bible, telling us the Bible is wrong.

They believe the antithesis, and anything that says otherwise is automatically wrong.

That's just how it works.

How it must enrage someone to have such Imperious might challenged by those nasty atheists and their pesky facts.

Ya ... I just turn into the Hulk every time some "nasty atheist" lays some fact on me.

People shouldn't make false claims against science in an open forum if they can't handle being corrected and have to start lashing out.

No argument there.

 

[Frank Robert]

In the animal kingdom, every sexual reproduction is a mutation.

Not a mutation but many mutations.

The vast majority do not confer a bendfit.

Why is that a bad thing? The vast majority of mutations are neutral and neutral mutations that accumulate in genomes have an important long-term impact on the evolution.

Rather than causal to evolution, the mutations are merely happenstance. Yes, w/o mutation no evolution can occur but elevating what chance provides as causal is like saying a pair of dice caused the player to roll snake eyes.

Another argument from ignorance.