(December 28, 2019 at 6:31 pm)Yukon_Jack Wrote: Then how do you account for only mutant fruit flies in over 30k generations and zilch for macro evolution?

It would take centuries for 30K fruit fly generations to pass, the longest running fruit fly experiment was about 60 years and that was only about 1,500 generations. They were kept in the dark and developed a keener sense of smell and longer head bristles that were helpful for navigating in the dark. It would take about 1,200 years for the experiment to have observed 30,000 generations.

---

(December 29, 2019 at 3:49 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Please stop this childlish nonsense, nothing forces God to make a perfect product. If you don't think so, you must demonstrate that a god must make perfect beings.

A perfect designer can create an imperfect product if it wants to, but one can't reasonably infer a perfect designer from an imperfect design.

---

A clarification that may help going forward:

straw man

1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Getting your interlocutor's position wrong is not in itself a straw man, it can be an honest mistake, perhaps an inference based on too little information, such as when the other person's actual position is unclear.

(December 30, 2019 at 10:32 am)Klorophyll Wrote: Even in Geology, you have theories, not laws. The theory of tectonic plates, for instance, is considered to still need empirical support with the help of modern geographical equipments.

Scientfic laws are part of any theory of any scietific discipline.
Even in Geology you have laws. Newtons law of gravity that determines what plates slide above/below others in subduction zones, being a part of the theory of plate tectonics.

(December 30, 2019 at 10:25 am)Klorophyll Wrote:

(December 30, 2019 at 9:37 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: How are you so certain the Quran is true? Did you observe Allah creating the world? You guys are the grandest of hypocrites.

Do I really need to repeat it over and over? there is no possible discussion about the Qur'an until the existence of God is settled.

How do I know God exists? I live in an orderly world obeying innumerable laws of physics, existence of laws imply existence of an (uncaused) lawgiver. I infer the latter from the most basic brick of reasonable thought (ex nihilo nihil fit)

Why would god need to fine tune the entire cosmos for our existence to be possible? Do you have any idea how epically stupid that sounds?

Quote:Why uncaused? Otherwise we have a causal infinite regress, which has no sufficient reason in itself to exist in the first place. Also there are many paradoxes arising from an actual infinite chain of causes. God is then the name we give to the necessary first cause.

Special pleading. *yawn*

Quote:If you're prepared to infer from anatomical similarities in the fossil record that we started evolving aeons ago? Why shouldn't I infer from an unbelievably fine tuned universe that there is a tuner?

The difference is that we have actual evidence for evolution, whereas you have no evidence of tuning or a tuner. 
[/quote]

(December 30, 2019 at 11:53 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Why would god need to fine tune the entire cosmos for our existence to be possible? Do you have any idea how epically stupid that sounds?

Even more * epically stupid * is this question, you're assuming God needs fine tuning + that fine tuning is only for us, when there could've been countless forms of life elsewhere in the universe.
Another strawman question because you don't take the time to understand what's written.

(December 30, 2019 at 11:53 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Special pleading. *yawn*

You're just mumbling fallacies' names without understanding my point, as usual. A necessary first cause is logically forced. We call it God. Calling something God merely defines it, there is no special pleading involved whatsoever.

(December 30, 2019 at 11:53 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: The difference is that we have actual evidence for evolution, whereas you have no evidence of tuning or a tuner.  

You don't, you have guesswork, arbitrary inference and occasionally, fraud, when it comes to processes taking billions of years to operate.

A tuner is a very reasonable explanation for the existence of tuning (duh.)

---

(December 30, 2019 at 11:46 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(December 30, 2019 at 10:32 am)Klorophyll Wrote: Even in Geology, you have theories, not laws. The theory of tectonic plates, for instance, is considered to still need empirical support with the help of modern geographical equipments.

Scientfic laws are part of any theory of any scietific discipline.
Even in Geology you have laws. Newtons law of gravity that determines what plates slide above/below others in subduction zones, being a part of the theory of plate tectonics.

Newton's law of gravity belongs to physics, it's not geology's invention. Just stop mixing things up just to respond with anything, Gosh;

(December 30, 2019 at 12:08 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(December 30, 2019 at 11:46 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Scientfic laws are part of any theory of any scietific discipline.
Even in Geology you have laws. Newtons law of gravity that determines what plates slide above/below others in subduction zones, being a part of the theory of plate tectonics.

Newton's law of gravity belongs to physics, it's not geology's invention. Just stop mixing things up just to respond with anything, Gosh;

You obviously didnt read, or comprehend, my second sentence. Here it is for you to read again: Scientifc disciplines (like geology), laws and theories arent separate things they are all (possibly, according to relevance) related to each other. You are a scientific illiterate trolling an internet forum. Dont you have more important things to do...like educating yourself about the stuff you are babbling about?
Iirc it was Plato who said: "The wise man speaks when he has something to say, the fool when he has to say something".  Why dont you shut the fuck up once in a while and listen, you may even learn something.
If you apply gravity to tectonics, and find out that tectonics work like gravity predicts, then you just have collected evidence for gravity as well.

(December 30, 2019 at 12:08 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Just stop mixing things up just to respond with anything, Gosh;

You really think you are somewhat smart, arent you? Hows the view from up there, on top of Mt. Stupid? Gosh

(December 30, 2019 at 12:08 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(December 30, 2019 at 11:53 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Why would god need to fine tune the entire cosmos for our existence to be possible? Do you have any idea how epically stupid that sounds?

Even more * epically stupid * is this question, you're assuming God needs fine tuning + that fine tuning is only for us, when there could've been countless forms of life elsewhere in the universe.
Another strawman question because you don't take the time to understand what's written.

I’m not assuming any of that. It’s your argument. So, god didn’t need to fine tune the universe? He just wanted to? How did you determine that?

(December 30, 2019 at 11:53 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Special pleading. *yawn*

Quote:You're just mumbling fallacies'

Because these arguments have been done to DEATH here, Klorophyll. Do you think you’re blowing our minds with this stuff? We had an almost 100 page thread just on whether or not an infinite regress is possible in reality with members who are actually qualified to talk about the math of such circumstances. You should go read it; you might learn something. I did.

(December 30, 2019 at 11:53 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: The difference is that we have actual evidence for evolution, whereas you have no evidence of tuning or a tuner.  

Quote:You don't, you have guesswork, arbitrary inference and occasionally, fraud, when it comes to processes taking billions of years to operate.

A tuner is a very reasonable explanation for the existence of tuning (duh.)

”Duh” isn’t an argument, and you have no evidence of tuning, so you can’t infer a tuner. Fortunately for evolution, the fact that you refuse to accept it doesn’t change the fact that it’s true, lol.

(December 30, 2019 at 12:08 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(December 30, 2019 at 11:53 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: The difference is that we have actual evidence for evolution, whereas you have no evidence of tuning or a tuner.  

You don't, you have guesswork, arbitrary inference and occasionally, fraud, when it comes to processes taking billions of years to operate.

Presumably God could have put us in any universe at all without care for whether it actually suited us, but if there is a God, the deity chose to create a universe in which it was plausible for us to arise via natural processes that we could eventually come to understand.

I don't understand the bibliolatry of some believers. If there's a Creator of the universe, the only thing we can be absolutely sure was authored by it is the universe we find ourselves in, but some people would rather rely on ancient texts than the evidence they believe their version of God provided in nature.

Ancient text testifies to humanity being distinctive, memorable, and most of all, significant. Evidence, on the other hand, extinguishes that notion quite conclusively.

(December 30, 2019 at 10:50 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: A clarification that may help going forward:

straw man

1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Getting your interlocutor's position wrong is not in itself a straw man, it can be an honest mistake, perhaps an inference based on too little information, such as when the other person's actual position is unclear.

Correct, a strawman isn't created by getting my position wrong, but by arguing against a position that is irrelevant to one I'm stating. LfC does think it's easier to defeat me on that separate point, and has already expressed I'll get hammered if I were to take it.

It doesn't matter whether she has my position on creationism right or wrong. It's a strawman because it ignores what I've said on evolution. Hence why I'll gladly state my alternative position was creator monkeys, and it's completely unevidenced.