Evolution is stupid

[BigChrisfilm]

GOOD GRIEF WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION BEFORE I PUNCH MYSELF SQUARE IN THE FACE! LOL.

[Goat]

Well, evolution has a specific definition.

What specific definition might you be referring to?

For biological evolution , the change of alleles over time.

Ok, I will now give the equivalent defintion of creation.

Creation- the act of creating

Then, how do we know we have 'creation' rather than 'existence'? We have physical proof of the change of alleles over time, and indeed, we have proof positive of this change of alleles allowing the development of unique traits.

Can you give evidence that 'Creation' has a 'Creator'?

[Fisherking]

Well, evolution has a specific definition.

What specific definition might you be referring to?

For biological evolution , the change of alleles over time.

Ok, I will now give the equivalent defintion of creation.

Creation- the act of creating

We have physical proof of the change of alleles over time and indeed, we have proof positive of this change of alleles allowing the development of unique traits.

Yes, we have observed alleles changing over time for thousands of years. Animal and plant breeders are well aware of the phenomena and have put it to good use for as long as we've known about it (creationists included).

Then, how do we know we have 'creation' rather than 'existence'?
Can you give evidence that 'Creation' has a 'Creator' ?

Sure, there are many examples one can read about here:United States Patent and Trademark Office
How do we know these are creations instead of just "existence"?

[Goat]

Well, evolution has a specific definition.

What specific definition might you be referring to?

For biological evolution , the change of alleles over time.

Ok, I will now give the equivalent defintion of creation.

Creation- the act of creating

We have physical proof of the change of alleles over time and indeed, we have proof positive of this change of alleles allowing the development of unique traits.

Yes, we have observed alleles changing over time for thousands of years. Animal and plant breeders are well aware of the phenomena and have put it to good use for as long as we've known about it (creationists included).

Then, how do we know we have 'creation' rather than 'existence'?
Can you give evidence that 'Creation' has a 'Creator' ?

Sure, there are many examples one can read about here:United States Patent and Trademark Office
How do we know these are creations instead of just "existence"?

Because we know the people are claiming to have developed those designs and concepts. We can lay hands on the people who put in the patents.

Can you lay a hand on God?

[Beto]

Then, how do we know we have 'creation' rather than 'existence'?
Can you give evidence that 'Creation' has a 'Creator' ?

Sure, there are many examples one can read about here:United States Patent and Trademark Office
How do we know these are creations instead of just "existence"?

You supplied the appropriate link to answer that.

[Goat]

Then, how do we know we have 'creation' rather than 'existence'?
Can you give evidence that 'Creation' has a 'Creator' ?

Sure, there are many examples one can read about here:United States Patent and Trademark Office
How do we know these are creations instead of just "existence"?

You supplied the appropriate link to answer that.

It seems that Fisherking is using the logical fallacy of "equivocation" When discussing the term 'creation' when talking about the alternative to scientific explaination, the usual reference is to the universe and everything in it, as a "Creation" of God.

[Beto]

Then, how do we know we have 'creation' rather than 'existence'?
Can you give evidence that 'Creation' has a 'Creator' ?

Sure, there are many examples one can read about here:United States Patent and Trademark Office
How do we know these are creations instead of just "existence"?

You supplied the appropriate link to answer that.

It seems that Fisherking is using the logical fallacy of "equivocation" When discussing the term 'creation' when talking about the alternative to scientific explaination, the usual reference is to the universe and everything in it, as a "Creation" of God.

Not only that, comparing the universe to patented human inventions is a blatant weak analogy, so obviously not much use as a valid argument for creationism. Weak analogies are pretty much all creationists have to offer, and they seem to have a hard time conceding that weak analogies are useful to demonstrate more complex, otherwise validated, ideas. They're not to be used as means for validation, at least if one hopes to present a logically valid argument.

[Fisherking]

Then, how do we know we have 'creation' rather than 'existence'?
Can you give evidence that 'Creation' has a 'Creator' ?

Sure, there are many examples one can read about here:United States Patent and Trademark Office
How do we know these are creations instead of just "existence"?

You supplied the appropriate link to answer that.

It seems that Fisherking is using the logical fallacy of "equivocation" When discussing the term 'creation' when talking about the alternative to scientific explaination, the usual reference is to the universe and everything in it, as a "Creation" of God.

Not only that, comparing the universe to patented human inventions is a blatant weak analogy, so obviously not much use as a valid argument for creationism. Weak analogies are pretty much all creationists have to offer, and they seem to have a hard time conceding that weak analogies are useful to demonstrate more complex, otherwise validated, ideas. They're not to be used as means for validation, at least if one hopes to present a logically valid argument.

The definition supplied for creation in this instance was used to illustrate how evolutionists equivocate their definitions for evolution. Remember, the claim is often made that evolution is fact -- the only problem is that change of alleles over time does nothing to explain the religious metaphysics of the molecules-to-man fairy tail that many faithfully support.

Can you lay a hand on God?

Notice how goat has now moved away from the fact of creation to a discussion about God. I claimed creation is fact. It happens every day--just like evolution in the "We have physical proof of the change of alleles over time" sense. We also have physical proof that creation happens every day.

Because we know the people are claiming to have developed those designs and concepts. We can lay hands on the people who put in the patents.

You know the people who claimed to have developed those designs and concepts? Can you lay hands or observe any of the people who supposedly designed something 100 years ago or is there a reliance upon heresay and fanciful tales of creation and design?

[Goat]

Then, how do we know we have 'creation' rather than 'existence'?
Can you give evidence that 'Creation' has a 'Creator' ?

Sure, there are many examples one can read about here:United States Patent and Trademark Office
How do we know these are creations instead of just "existence"?

You supplied the appropriate link to answer that.

It seems that Fisherking is using the logical fallacy of "equivocation" When discussing the term 'creation' when talking about the alternative to scientific explaination, the usual reference is to the universe and everything in it, as a "Creation" of God.

Not only that, comparing the universe to patented human inventions is a blatant weak analogy, so obviously not much use as a valid argument for creationism. Weak analogies are pretty much all creationists have to offer, and they seem to have a hard time conceding that weak analogies are useful to demonstrate more complex, otherwise validated, ideas. They're not to be used as means for validation, at least if one hopes to present a logically valid argument.

The definition supplied for creation in this instance was used to illustrate how evolutionists equivocate their definitions for evolution. Remember, the claim is often made that evolution is fact -- the only problem is that change of alleles over time does nothing to explain the religious metaphysics of the molecules-to-man fairy tail that many faithfully support.

Can you lay a hand on God?

Notice how goat has now moved away from the fact of creation to a discussion about God. I claimed creation is fact. It happens every day--just like evolution in the "We have physical proof of the change of alleles over time" sense. We also have physical proof that creation happens every day.

Because we know the people are claiming to have developed those designs and concepts. We can lay hands on the people who put in the patents.

You know the people who claimed to have developed those designs and concepts? Can you lay hands or observe any of the people who supposedly designed something 100 years ago or is there a reliance upon heresay and fanciful tales of creation and design?

We have their bones, we have their methods , and we know the results of what they did, since the techniques that were discovered then are the basis of what we do now.

Mind you, you show great ignorance for science when you make the TOE equal to abiogenesis. That has been pointed out to you many times, yet you still make that same straw man arguement. At this point in time, I can only assume you are being willfully ignorant.

As it was pointed out, the weak analogy of trying to equate the efforts of human endeavor with either evolution or the universe is not very relevant nor promotes your cause. The fact you have to clutch at straws like that shows the weakness of your position.

So, what do you have besides weak analogies, equivocation, and the logical fallacy of personal incredibility? That is all I have seen from you.

[Beto]

Then, how do we know we have 'creation' rather than 'existence'?
Can you give evidence that 'Creation' has a 'Creator' ?

Sure, there are many examples one can read about here:United States Patent and Trademark Office
How do we know these are creations instead of just "existence"?

You supplied the appropriate link to answer that.

It seems that Fisherking is using the logical fallacy of "equivocation" When discussing the term 'creation' when talking about the alternative to scientific explaination, the usual reference is to the universe and everything in it, as a "Creation" of God.

Not only that, comparing the universe to patented human inventions is a blatant weak analogy, so obviously not much use as a valid argument for creationism. Weak analogies are pretty much all creationists have to offer, and they seem to have a hard time conceding that weak analogies are useful to demonstrate more complex, otherwise validated, ideas. They're not to be used as means for validation, at least if one hopes to present a logically valid argument.

The definition supplied for creation in this instance was used to illustrate how evolutionists equivocate their definitions for evolution.

The fact is that the TOE is incredibly complex and encompasses many fields of study, with several definitions apparently focusing on one field or another. It's not reasonable to assume a theory is wrong when it's obviously too complicated to be defined simply to an uneducated person. However, the one previously submitted might serve that purpose.

Ironical, that "creationist theories" based on purely subjective philosophies would have such a big issue with an apparent "ambiguity" in the way "evolution" is defined.

Remember, the claim is often made that evolution is fact --

I appreciate the sentiment, but the theory has ironclad evidence to support it, and that's not likely to change, regardless of how one chooses to address it.

the only problem is that change of alleles over time does nothing to explain the religious metaphysics of the molecules-to-man fairy tail that many faithfully support.

"Religious metaphysics of the molecules-to-man fairy tail" is just a version of the beat up straw man creationists use to discredit the TOE on the issue of when and how molecules first aggregated in a way that some will call "life"... and the "origin of life" isn't meant to be explained by the TOE. There's no more reason to address this particular issue as something "metaphysical" than there was before every "mystery" of nature was explained. You may find the following article interesting.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092514.htm

[Fisherking]

Because we know the people are claiming to have developed those designs and concepts. We can lay hands on the people who put in the patents.

You know the people who claimed to have developed those designs and concepts? Can you lay hands or observe any of the people who supposedly designed something 100 years ago or is there a reliance upon heresay and fanciful tales of creation and design?

We have their bones, we have their methods , and we know the results of what they did, since the techniques that were discovered then are the basis of what we do now.

Whos bones do you have? How do you know it was their methods(and not just 'existence'), their results, or their techniques?

Mind you, you show great ignorance for science when you make the TOE equal to abiogenesis. That has been pointed out to you many times, yet you still make that same straw man arguement.

I assume you are referring to my molecules-to-man statement?

Remember, the claim is often made that evolution is fact -- the only problem is that change of alleles over time does nothing to explain the religious metaphysics of the molecules-to-man fairy tail that many faithfully support

That is a fact, not a strawman argument. I would distance myself from abiogenesis and the true believers too.