EvC Forum: A Test Of Science And Evolution Knowledge

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: A Test Of Science And Evolution Knowledge

ringo

Member (Idle past 430 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 23 of 83 (814019)
07-03-2017 12:36 PM

Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
07-03-2017 12:33 PM

Re: EvC

mike the wiz writes:

To evaluate whether there are, "holes" in creation really the appropriate expertise isn't evolution, it's critical thinking and logic.

Actually, the holes in creationism are caused by lack of evidence. All the critical thinking and logic in the world won't help you if it has nothing to work on.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2017 12:33 PM		mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2017 12:55 PM		ringo has replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 430 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

(3)

Message 28 of 83 (814033)
07-03-2017 1:11 PM

Reply to: Message 25 by mike the wiz
07-03-2017 12:55 PM

Re: EvC

Maybe you should devote less of your time to schoolboy logic and more to learning how to construct a sentence. It's hard to glean any sense from your post.

mike the wiz writes:

So then if this isn't evidence for created kinds, then you have to put forward what would qualify as evidence.

The bottom line is that evidence for creation requires evidence of a creator.

mike the wiz writes:

.....why would creative, intelligently designed things, not count as evidence of creation?

Because it's circular.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2017 12:55 PM		mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 66 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2017 7:41 AM		ringo has replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 430 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

(1)

Message 58 of 83 (814278)
07-05-2017 3:35 PM

Reply to: Message 51 by Tangle
07-05-2017 4:06 AM

Re: Evidence for kinds

Tangle writes:

So presumably there should be a clear boundary between a pig and a cow?

Pigs must be "fallen" cows.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 51 by Tangle, posted 07-05-2017 4:06 AM		Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 59 by Tangle, posted 07-05-2017 3:43 PM		ringo has seen this message but not replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 430 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

(1)

Message 77 of 83 (814487)
07-10-2017 12:01 PM

Reply to: Message 66 by mike the wiz
07-10-2017 7:41 AM

Re: EvC

mike the wiz writes:

In fact evidence of intelligent design can't "NOT" be evidence of intelligent design even if the explanation is that it wasn't caused by intelligent design.

Huh?

mike the wiz writes:

The evidence for a Creator is a creation/created/intelligently designed things.

But "creation/created/intelligently designed things" is not what we observe.

mike the wiz writes:

To say, "it's not" means you have to qualify what is. I notice you didn't do that.

If design proponentsists can not define design, why should I be able to? If you can't define a flerbend, why should I have to prove one doesn't exist?

mkike the wiz writes:

Prediction; you won't qualify evidence of a Creator as true evidence which would, "follow" which we all know would be the usual evidence of creation and design, but rather you will deliberately choose to qualify evidence of a Creator as something you already know does not exist, so I can't provide it.

Your prediction fails. As I have told Phat many times, I will gladly accept evidence of a creator. I won't even do a thorough background check like the FBI or MI5 would do. I'll accept the same evidence that I'd ask of the guy who reads the gas meter - picture ID will be fine.

On the contrary, I think it's you and Phat who would not accept real evidence of a creator. You'd call him a false god or a demon because he doesn't fit your fiction of what the creator "should" be. You don't want evidence of a creator. You'd rather create your own hiding creator.

mike the wiz writes:

Ever heard of the law of non-contradiction?

I've never heard anybody but creationists put much stock in it.