Can someone debunk this

[Mystic]

Therefore evolution, as taught, today is false.

Or evolution as you're trying to characterise it is false.

Which is the more likely?

I don't play dice with these type of things, I don't go for probability. Either something is decisively proven or it's not. In this case, I have decisively shown why it is false. 

Last time I made a thread about this paradox or we were in a long thread that was mainly about this, someone did their best to kill the discussion and they did, with an irrelevant rant. I did that thread while Deist.  I was weak hearted back then,  thought every sound argument I made didn't prove much, but now it is so clear, reasoning and what points to, is becoming more clear and clear.

Please address the actual paradox. I am sure you can't not due to not knowing something, but due to what we know and what I know for certain.

---

I really got to go study!

[Cyberman]

You have decisively shown why you think it's false. That's not the same thing at all. If you managed to prove evolution as false, why are you posting your 'decisive proof' here on an online atheist forum? Why don't you write it up in a paper and submit it to a science journal like Nature?

[Abaddon_ire]

Got any proof to back that up, or just Islamic word salad?

Ok,  concsiousness and non-concsiouness are binary. On and off.  Either a ghost or not.

When an egg is growing to a baby, there is many steps, true.

Yet it is happenning with multilayer of many changes at the same time that are acting according to gene intructions.

Now evolution, do things change like pokemon? No. Gradual small mutations over time right? 

Yet think about it. The has to be so many of these small mutations, and yet at one point it has to click, no-ghost to ghost.

This is vastly so different that like we grow from egg to baby it would require numerous mutations at the same time, all by design....both which evolution doesn't offer in naturalistic paradigm.

Thus design is proven.

---

You do realise don't you MysticKnight that the mutations happen to the DNA which are a recipe developing for a complex system such as a brain. The brain itself does not mutate throughout the course of a lifetime.

I'd ask for justification of your beliefs but it doesn't sound like you really know what is supposed to happen inside your head and when you are conceived.

I hope you re-read what I wrote and my last post.

---

A single mutation can cause cancer and death. A transition from consciousness to unconsciousness.

A fertilised zygote is effectively a dedicated mutation machine. From a single cell it must create every other type of cell in the human body ex nihilo, including the brain.

I am trying to understand the relevance?

That which is conscious can become unconscious. That which is unconscious can become conscious. It happens every day. You have experienced it yourself. What were you thinking ten years before you were born?

[Cyberman]

Please address the actual paradox. I am sure you can't not due to not knowing something, but due to what we know and what I know for certain.

Were this a creationist issue, that would nominate you for this year's glittering QQOQQ - the StonedCommander "defiance in ignorance" Memorial award for the dumbest question asked in the confident and arrogant expectation that there is no answer - if the awards were still running.

[KevinM1]

That is exactly how it had to happen though if evolution is true. It had to one stage go from no ghost to ghost, and by a few chaotic mutations. Do you see how silly that it is? Yes.

Now with things like the eye, there are many layers of types of senses on earth, so you can map it out. From one simple to another slightly more complex, to another more complex, and so on till it becomes an eye.

In this sense you can have a mapping of simple ghosts in the machine to more complex ghosts in the machine. But however, the first ghost in the machine, that is the essential thing, can it go from chaotic random mutations from no ghost to ghost. I argue you can't.

You’re not arguing, you’re asserting. You keep saying it can’t happen, without explaining (or, even better, presenting evidence) why.

This is just a weaker flavor of argument from incredulity. I am unimpressed.

[Harry Nevis]

Or evolution as you're trying to characterise it is false.

Which is the more likely?

I don't play dice with these type of things, I don't go for probability. Either something is decisively proven or it's not. In this case, I have decisively shown why it is false. 

You have decisively shown that it is false?  How? Because you decided it was?

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL....

[Amarok]

I don't play dice with these type of things, I don't go for probability. Either something is decisively proven or it's not. In this case, I have decisively shown why it is false. 

Then your a fool . With foolish standards . And you have shown nothing as false.

[Redbeard The Pink]

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article...ne.0134116

This seems to suggest that the acid filled sack we know as the stomach acts as a filter for things that enter the intestines. It has different acidity levels in different species. Maybe one or more creatures had somewhat acidic guts to begin with, and that acid gradually became localized to a particular area? Without speculating too much, I can still think of various ways an acidic stomach could evolve over time.

[Losty]

You know how uptight religitards are about sex, Tiz.  Just the thought of it sends them scrambling for their fucking bibles/korans.

Moderator Notice

This kind of gross generalization does not foster meaningful discussion. It creates flame wars. Please avoid this behaviour.