Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: January 6, 2025, 11:53 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
(February 22, 2015 at 9:13 pm)YGninja Wrote: Esqui really wants to lose another debate??

Oh, that's cute. ROFLOL

(February 22, 2015 at 6:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Just an ad hom against the source. Notice esq has offered absolutely nothing against the point but a brazen ad hominem.

Mostly because your point is largely irrelevant, and the source below par for academic standards. The fact that you choose to selectively interpret a broadly sketched description of mutation doesn't obligate me to refute you as though you'd provided something substantive.

Quote:This is -imagination- not science. YOu complain about my sources from colleges, but assume that you don't need any sources for you to be believed. All hail esqui! Clap Clap

I'm sorry you don't understand basic concepts in evolutionary theory, like the idea that natural selection selects against harmful mutations, or that mutations happen, but again, this isn't my problem. Do I really need to go this basic with you? Are you questioning the existence of natural selection or mutations?

Quote:You do understand the basic contention of evolution, don't you? You need new information, not reactivation of old information.

And you're just asserting that it's old information, based on nothing but personal opinion, when factually speaking it is a new set of cecal valves that aren't present in the original populations of lizards. You bitched about my lack of sources a moment ago, and now you expect us to just trust a bare assertion from you? Thinking

Quote: Why is your evidence so weak?

It's not, and a bare assertion like the rebuttal you gave is not actually an argument.

Quote: No surprise to hear the "YOu just don't understand", typical response of the hilariously arrogant yet diabolically ignorant.

Says the person who still won't even consider the possibility that he really doesn't understand. Rolleyes

Quote:Its a mutation, no-one is arguing whether or not mutations occur. Mutation isn't evolution. How, using that exact same process, could a bacteria develop into man?

Mutation is the driving force of evolution; small changes in the genome, introduced to the population via natural selection. So you bray that I shouldn't accuse you of not understanding evolution, and then promptly demonstrate that you don't understand evolution. Dodgy

Quote:Im creating the straw men? Bwahahahaha!!!
My point remains unrefuted, losing things doesn't prove we all gained so much stuff that we became humans from bacteria.

But when I provide evidence of genetic gain you just go "nuh uh! Is old information!" and we're supposed to believe you presumably because you said so?

Quote:1: You are missing the point. Its simple maths; You have a bicycle, it contains 50 parts. You can change any part randomly for a part from a scrap heap. If you want to add a part, you need to delete 5 first. Now, "evolve" that bicycle into a jumbo jet, please.

Give me millions of years, a big enough junkyard, and remove this arbitrary "delete five parts" rule, and I've no doubt that I could. Yet again, this is an argument from ignorance mixed with an argument from analogy: you don't understand how it could happen, therefore it couldn't. Nonsense. Rolleyes

Quote:2: Again the "You are just too stupid" defense. Yes i am aware that each person is born with new mutations, like i am aware that a photocopy of an original painting will not be perfect, and the copy of the copy less so, and the copy of the copy of the copy, even less so, until we end up in a forum listening to some bright spark repeatedly use the "Youre too stupid" defense while thinking hes smart.

So how on earth can you be claiming that mutations aren't plentiful enough, knowing that? Dodgy

Quote:Seems to me he was trying to answer the question, and couldn't, then got embarrassed about it so wrote a stinging blog on his webpage to save face infront of his congregation. Yet again you offered nothing but your own word to support your claims.

I've offered nothing but my own words? Dawkins' response has already been posted, and you are the one gainsaying the man's response, claiming to know more about what someone else was thinking, at an event you weren't present at, than the man himself. Do you think if you just say the most arrogant, presumptuous thing possible, the burden of proof suddenly reverses?

Quote:Yawn, yet again an erroneous scream of "FALLACY!11". Argument from ignorance? No-where did i say i don't understand or i don't know, my argument is grounded in what i DO understand, and you've responded again with with what amounts to an ad hominem.

You posted an analogy for the sole purpose of demonstrating that we don't know how that analogy would work, as an argument against evolution. That is the argument from ignorance: if your position is "you can't make X analogy work, therefore evolution can't be true," that is the argument from ignorance. And if that wasn't what you were saying, then you weren't saying anything at all, as it robs the purpose from the analogy.

Quote:The book will inevitably become gibberish with or without natural selection. YOu need a mechanism which can grow "ajojkfeofkok", into a thesaurus, and you've given us nothing

I just supplied natural selection as a mechanism, and your response was just "natural selection isn't a mechanism." You're relying on "nuh uh!" an awful lot, here. Dodgy

Quote:Even if natural selection were that precise and influential, which it isn't... How'd you get more letters?

Gene duplication is one method, just off the top of my head. Oh, didn't know that could happen? How fucking surprising.

Quote:I think this is a side point, but you are overplaying the role of natural selection. No minor mutation is going to make any difference either way, in 99.999% of cases. Take a lizard which can change its colour to blend in with a rock, its not gonna take 1 mutation, but hundreds or thousands, each useless by themselves, and even then theres a million ways that original colour-changing lizard could be killed and all that extremely unlikely "evolution" would be thrown away.

But if that color changing lizard's genes enter the gene pool when it survives to propagate more freely, then so does the mutation, which if it's a successful enough survival trait- again by natural selection- will spread through the population in subsequent generations, giving you many more chances for subsequent mutations to extrapolate on that. That's how natural selection works.

Quote:Yawn, that there is a mechanism which halts mutation isn't my position, never has been. That actually IS a straw man, just so you know...

If there's not a mechanism, then mutations will add up over time, accumulating to the point where we can no longer classify the resultant organism as a part of the species it came from. A- let's say- dog with thousands upon thousands of small changes will not look the same as the dog it first came from, it will be too morphologically different to be classified as a dog.

We know small changes occur. We know they accumulate. You're claiming that somehow, those changes will stop accumulating before they result in a morphologically different organism, and for that to happen, you would need a mechanism for that. It's kinda like any other inexorable force: if gravity is making an object fall, and your claim is that it's impossible for that object to continue falling, then you'd need a mechanism to stop the fall, as what we know about gravity shows that the fall will continue. Sorry if you don't like that, but it's how rationality works.

Quote:If evolution were true, we'd be able to model it in a computer like we can for all other, actual scientific theories. It would be very simple, as simple as simulating a single cell with reproductive abilities and mutations etc, coupled with a synthetic environment. We could turn up the speed of the program, and watch intelligent life evolve as we eat pizza. Needless to say, we have no such program because all attempts have failed.

Oh, we've failed at that? So, I couldn't find an example on literally the first result of a google search for "evolution simulation"? Angel
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible. - by Esquilax - February 22, 2015 at 10:13 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Ham vs. Craig Fake Messiah 22 2448 November 27, 2021 at 11:50 pm
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  William Lane Craig badmouthed Donald Trump. Jehanne 25 3886 August 30, 2020 at 4:14 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  PSA: RationalWiki -- William Lane Craig Jehanne 10 1940 December 14, 2018 at 12:10 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  William Lane Craig's drunken phone call. Jehanne 3 1473 January 13, 2018 at 3:04 pm
Last Post: Abaddon_ire
  Dr. Craig contradiction. Jehanne 121 30697 November 13, 2017 at 3:24 pm
Last Post: Harry Nevis
  Bill Craig now claiming to have a PhD in Philosophy. Jehanne 26 6489 March 18, 2017 at 11:50 am
Last Post: Jehanne
  William Craig caught in a lie. Jehanne 23 6047 January 7, 2017 at 1:32 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  William Lane Craig unmasked. Jehanne 25 5150 December 7, 2016 at 11:27 am
Last Post: Jehanne
  William Lane Craig denies the number zero. Jehanne 63 9739 October 30, 2016 at 4:54 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  Dr. Craig is a liar. Jehanne 1036 148306 May 24, 2016 at 7:14 pm
Last Post: dom.donald



Users browsing this thread: 22 Guest(s)