Refuting Evolution

[Esquilax]

Actually this proves intelligent design
while overall near-symmetry is a matter of beauty
differences proves that it is not nature which formed it (like fingerprints for example or inner organ non-symmetrical positions and shapes)

You're unbe-fucking-lievable: so far you've claimed that symmetry is a sign of design, near symmetry is a sign of design, and asymmetry is a sign of design. Could you get any more dishonest?

But please, fuckstick, enlighten us: aside from your flat and arrogant by fiat assertion, how does asymmetry point to design?

[orogenicman]

This assumes, of course, that symmetry and asymmetry are not a part of the natural world, which, of course, is a poor assumption. Crystal symmetry, for instance, is a direct reflection of its atomic structure, a perfectly naturally explainable phenomenon. Symmetry in biological organisms is a balanced distribution of body parts, but that symmetry is not perfect. If is was, when I divide my face into two parts vertically in a photograph and mirror them, I would not get the exact same facial appearance that I would get from the original face. That is because the environment often shapes that symmetry. For instance, I could have a scar on my right side that doesn't exist on my left side, or even better, I could have a deformity that causes my left cheek bone to sit higher up on my face than my right cheek bone. I could have a drooping eyelid on one side and not the other. These are not design features, and neither is the original symmetry, which is a function of natural selection.

Actually this proves intelligent design
while overall near-symmetry is a matter of beauty
differences proves that it is not nature which formed it (like fingerprints for example or inner organ non-symmetrical positions and shapes)

Fingerprints are not formed naturally? Internal organs are not formed naturally? Could you be any more stupid?

[TheBeardedDude]

This assumes, of course, that symmetry and asymmetry are not a part of the natural world, which, of course, is a poor assumption. Crystal symmetry, for instance, is a direct reflection of its atomic structure, a perfectly naturally explainable phenomenon. Symmetry in biological organisms is a balanced distribution of body parts, but that symmetry is not perfect. If is was, when I divide my face into two parts vertically in a photograph and mirror them, I would not get the exact same facial appearance that I would get from the original face. That is because the environment often shapes that symmetry. For instance, I could have a scar on my right side that doesn't exist on my left side, or even better, I could have a deformity that causes my left cheek bone to sit higher up on my face than my right cheek bone. I could have a drooping eyelid on one side and not the other. These are not design features, and neither is the original symmetry, which is a function of natural selection.

Actually this proves intelligent design
while overall near-symmetry is a matter of beauty
differences proves that it is not nature which formed it (like fingerprints for example or inner organ non-symmetrical positions and shapes)

Are you trying to say that crystal symmetry is necessarily a product of design?

And not that it is a reflection of the molecular arrangement of molecules in the crystal lattice?


And how would this serve to prove a connection between crystal formation and its intelligent designer, and life having one also?

[Angrboda]

As I recently learned, as an argument from design is an analogy which demonstrates *only* the possibility of a designer and nothing more, and not necessarily 'a creator', this argument fails to demonstrate the existence of the specific godly thing you are trying to prove exists. Human designers work with pre-existing materials to 'create' new things all the time. That Leonardo da Vinci 'designed' the Mona Lisa says nothing about who provided the paint he used to paint it with. Even if I grant the existence of a designer on this basis, ex hypothesi, it does not get you to a creator god.

Since you need to prove both a) a designer, and b) that designer is also the creator, then you have just, basically, screwed the pooch with a beautiful example of .

[Muslim Scholar]

As I recently learned, as an argument from design is an analogy which demonstrates *only* the possibility of a designer and nothing more, and not necessarily 'a creator', this argument fails to demonstrate the existence of the specific godly thing you are trying to prove exists. Human designers work with pre-existing materials to 'create' new things all the time. That Leonardo da Vinci 'designed' the Mona Lisa says nothing about who provided the paint he used to paint it with. Even if I grant the existence of a designer on this basis, ex hypothesi, it does not get you to a creator god.

Since you need to prove both a) a designer, and b) that designer is also the creator, then you have just,

Yes, I didn't claim that it proves which God or a God for say
I proved the creator in the other thread

Your problems is that you want God to spoon feed you his existence, then even if that happen you can ask to make you do right as well

[Angrboda]

As I recently learned, as an argument from design is an analogy which demonstrates *only* the possibility of a designer and nothing more, and not necessarily 'a creator', this argument fails to demonstrate the existence of the specific godly thing you are trying to prove exists. Human designers work with pre-existing materials to 'create' new things all the time. That Leonardo da Vinci 'designed' the Mona Lisa says nothing about who provided the paint he used to paint it with. Even if I grant the existence of a designer on this basis, ex hypothesi, it does not get you to a creator god.

Since you need to prove both a) a designer, and b) that designer is also the creator, then you have just,

I proved the creator in the other thread

No, you most assuredly did not. What you did demonstrate, was that with regard to the mathematics you referenced in your 'proof', you don't know your ass from your asymptote. First, you asserted (twice) that if a function had a limit of a certain value as it approaches a point (toward the limit of), that it then necessarily would have either that value at that point, or be zero (which itself is a value). It does not necessarily have a value (i.e. 'is defined') at the limit even if the limit was defined. This is a freshman level calculus / numerical integration misunderstanding, and if I were still back in college grading math papers for a prof, I'd have been covering your paper with red ink at that point. What you had was an open interval in which the limit at one excluded end-point was defined, but the function itself was not. This was explained to you, but you ignored the notice like a half-comatose grandpa, obliviously mowing down speed bumps, and not stopping. I ignored your ignorant dismissal of the mathematical point because it's obvious, in terms of the mathematics that your proof requires, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Secondarily, if you can't explicitly link designer + creator, your demonstrating there was 'a designer' is irrelevant to a discussion about a creator god, offers no support for the existence of, or other arguments for, that creator god, and is thus exceedingly guilty of the fallacious, ignoratio elenchi just referenced. For all you know, the 'designer' was an alien in a different 'brane' (think parallel dimension), and that designer's existence says absolutely dick squat about the 'creator' of this brane (this set of temporal + spatial dimensions).

[The Valkyrie]

I proved the creator in the other thread

No, you most assuredly did not. What you did demonstrate, was that with regard to the mathematics you referenced in your 'proof', you don't know your ass from your asymptote. First, you asserted (twice) that if a function had a limit of a certain value as it approaches a point (toward the limit of), that it then necessarily would have either that value at that point, or be zero (which itself is a value). It does not necessarily have a value (i.e. 'is defined') at the limit even if the limit was defined. This is a freshman level calculus / numerical integration misunderstanding, and if I were still back in college grading math papers for a prof, I'd have been covering your paper with red ink at the time. What you had was an open interval in which the limit at one excluded end-point was defined, but the function itself was not. This was explained to you, but you ignored the notice like a half-comatose grandpa, obliviously mowing down speed bumps, and not stopping. I ignored your ignorant dismissal of the mathematical point because it's obvious, in terms of the mathematics that your proof requires, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Secondarily, if you can't explicitly link designer + creator, your demonstrating there was 'a designer' is irrelevant to a discussion about a creator god, offers no support for the existence of, or other arguments for, that creator god, and is thus exceedingly guilty of the fallacious, ignoratio elenchi just referenced. For all you know, the 'designer' was an alien in a different 'brane' (think parallel dimension), and that designer's existence says absolutely dick squat about the 'creator' of this brane (this set of temporal + spatial dimensions).

Whenever someone states that they can refute evolution I always have to wonder why they haven't managed to write a science paper, get it peer-reviewed, and then published.

Such refutation for what is a fundamental science, and a science that has given birth to other scientific disciplines would be a guarantee for a Nobel Prize.

Of course, they always make the claim that such research and science exists but there's an international conspiracy among scientists to keep that evidence suppressed.

Of course, this is nonsense since science is a cut throat field and many scientists would jump at the chance for the fame and funding such a revelation would get.

[Muslim Scholar]

First, you asserted (twice) that if a function had a limit of a certain value as it approaches a point (toward the limit of), that it then necessarily would have either that value at that point, or be zero (which itself is a value).

I didn't say that!
The universe at time 0 must be constant (proved by part I)
which means 0 or any other (static) value
This is obvious!
I think you need to read the proof again

It does not necessarily have a value (i.e. 'is defined') at the limit even if the limit was defined.

this is only on paper, in reality an object either exists or not
and if exists it is either dynamic/variable or constant/static
there is no other options

Secondarily, if you can't explicitly link designer + creator, your demonstrating there was 'a designer' is irrelevant to a discussion about a creator god, offers no support for the existence of, or other arguments for, that creator god, and is thus exceedingly guilty of the fallacious, ignoratio elenchi just referenced. For all you know, the 'designer' was an alien in a different 'brane' (think parallel dimension), and that designer's existence says absolutely dick squat about the 'creator' of this brane (this set of temporal + spatial dimensions).

Agree, I didn't put this part yet

[orogenicman]

Muslim Scholar, you did respond to my post #272.

[*Deidre*]

Muslim Scholar,

Why is it necessary to refute evolution in order to prove God's existence? Do you feel that in order to follow your religion, you also can't accept the theory of evolution? Is it because Darwin's theory doesn't of course support a theist's belief that humans have souls? And this would throw a monkey wrench into the whole heaven/hell concoction?

Help me understand your point. No, I didn't read this entire thread.