What's enough evidence?

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

ah forget it, there is no convinceing me, there is no proof.

Because you apparently suffer from AADD doesn’t mean that there is no evidence. If you want a smoking gun then how do you rationalize that humans and chimps have the same broken vitamin C gene?

EDIT: from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

Recently, the L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for Vitamin C synthesis, was found in humans and guinea pigs (Nishikimi et al. 1992; Nishikimi et al. 1994). It exists as a pseudogene, present but incapable of functioning (see prediction 4.4 for more about pseudogenes). In fact, since this was originally written the vitamin C pseudogene has been found in other primates, exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory. We now have the DNA sequences for this broken gene in chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999). And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes) (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999).

 

[Army of Juan]

I do have a science degree, trust me i know much more than you think i do.

Oh, then you are just playing dumb? If not, then can you offer another alternative to evolution that is also supported by as much evidence?

If you really want to learn about the ToE then you should lurk more before posting so you don't look so foolish. You are by far not the first person to ask these questions and show their misunderstandings.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I do have a science degree, trust me i know much more than you think i do.

Let me guess, and you probably tested as a genius when you were 14 too right? If you know more then show it stone. Show us through your words. Thus far you appear woefully ignorant about the theory you claim to know is false.

 

[stone]

there are no misunderstandings on my part, only on yours, and with that bit of fact i will cya

 

[Army of Juan]

actually im just here killing time, thought id test out one of my theories about this forum.

To see how quickly you'd be attacked by posting like a YEC? Don't be a troll.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

there are no misunderstandings on my part, only on yours, and with that bit of fact i will cya

Tuck your tail and run. If you stick around here too long you may learn something.

 

[stone]

Because you apparently suffer from AADD doesn’t mean that there is no evidence. If you want a smoking gun then how do you rationalize that humans and chimps have the same broken vitamin C gene?

EDIT: from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

maybe youll have something more convinceing the next time i drop by

and whats with the insults m8?

 

[AirPo]

ok, but this only proves against evolution as well.

How?

salamanders...?

I thought you were looking for observed speciation otside the lab.

come on, have there been any human changes that you know of?

Considering the fact that we're still human, I don't hink you'll find what you're looking for.

ah forget it, there is no convinceing me,

If you're not open to being wrong, you'll never know the truth.

there is no proof.

This toe sounds like an item of worship that one draws their beliefs from

You've seen plenty.

 

[AirPo]

LOL, perhaps.

Then you obviously have no idea what evolution is.

 

[Army of Juan]

there are no misunderstandings on my part, only on yours, and with that bit of fact i will cya

I would like to know what that is.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

maybe youll have something more convinceing the next time i drop by

and whats with the insults m8?

Not a very graceful dodge. Why should anyone waste their time when you’ve already admitted that nothing can convince you? Continue to deny reality if you like. Denial is not going to support your beliefs or refute the ToE.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Typical creationist with a typical modus operandi.



1. Argue that your ignorant misunderstanding of the ToE makes if false.

2. Deny and evidence presented.

3. When forced into a corner tuck tail and run.

4. Claim another victory for god.

 

[nvxplorer]

In evidence at 9:42 AM:

I do have a science degree, trust me i know much more than you think i do.

In evidence at 9:44 AM:

actually im just here killing time, thought id test out one of my theories about this forum.

I call bullpuckey.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I call bullpuckey.

I second your call. All in favor say aye.

 

[Nightson]

I'm going to say it again, just for all the creationists out there, what would convince you? Is it nothing? Is there something that will do it?

And a special emphasis for all the lurkers out there, come in and post with an open mind, tell us what evidence would convince you.

 

[LemmingLord]

And a special emphasis for all the lurkers out there, come in and post with an open mind, tell us what evidence would convince you.

I am pretty convinced already. Ahhh, but what would convince me that creation occured? Probably a display by god... say, the stars rearranged saying "I CREATD THE EARTH." Something like that..

 

[Calminian]

I am pretty convinced already. Ahhh, but what would convince me that creation occured? Probably a display by god... say, the stars rearranged saying "I CREATD THE EARTH." Something like that..

AnEmpiricalAgnostic mentioned this earlier. Interestingly his version would be a huge message in the sands of the earth. But stars sound even more challenging.

My question to you both is kind of what I would expect God to ask (if you indeed stood before Him some day). In order for you to read and understand that message, you would have to use your brain, which is infinitely more complex than the star (or sand) arrangement. So why wouldn't that (the human brain) serve as an even more convincing proof of a Designer?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

AnEmpiricalAgnostic mentioned this earlier. Interestingly his version would be a huge message in the sands of the earth. But stars sound even more challenging.

My question to you both is kind of what I would expect God to ask (if you indeed stood before Him some day). In order for you to read and understand that message, you would have to use your brain, which is infinitely more complex than the star (or sand) arrangement. So why wouldn't that (the human brain) serve as an even more convincing proof of a Designer?

The big difference that there is a natural explanation for the complexity of our brain. Stars suddenly lining up to spell a message or sands spontaneously arranging is a natural impossibility.

 

[Calminian]

The big difference that there is a natural explanation for the complexity of our brain. Stars suddenly lining up to spell a message or sands spontaneously arranging is a natural impossibility.

If one can believe a natural explanation for a random natural human eye that can sense the light and a random natural human brain that can interpret the message why not also a random message in the stars which is much less complex?

Men have had quite a bit of time to work on natural explanations for the former. What makes you think they wouldn't be able to come up with something for the latter? A few hundred years and all kinds of naturalistic models would be developed. Anything but God!

If intelligence is not required to form intelligence, they why would it be required to form and intelligent message?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

If one can believe a natural explanation for a random natural human eye that can sense the light and a random natural human brain that can interpret the message why not also a random message in the stars which is much less complex?

Simply because complexity is not a valid indicator of intelligent design.

Men have had quite a bit of time to work on natural explanations for the former. What makes you think they wouldn't be able to come up with something for the latter? A few hundred years and all kinds of naturalistic models would be developed. Anything but God!

I know it’s hard to not play the persecuted theist but science isn’t trying to refute your god™. Yes, science will look for a natural explanation but these things are a natural impossibility. If stars suddenly rearranged to spell a message or sands did the same then we can recognize that as anomalistic to say the least.

If intelligence is not required to form intelligence, they why would it be required to form and intelligent message?

Because it’s not a matter of intelligent design at all. It’s a matter of what’s naturally possible and what is not.