2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 639:
Line 639: + + + +
→Scientific Claims
So, and I am a bit disappointed that you gave up to provide an example. If you cannot give a single example for something where the lack of purpose implies randomness, your claim that lack of purpose implies randomness can't be that strong. It seems like you cannot come up with evidence for your own position, but only criticize the position of others. Creationists are often blamed for arguing along the line "you cannot explain everything therefore my explanation must be right". We all know that that is a poor argument. It seems like you ask me for an example, rather than do your own homework, because this is the only way you know to argue your case. You still operate under the assumption that I want to convince you of evolution, or the the big bang, while my position merely that you should be able to admit to yourself that your view could be wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:21, 20 December 2007 (EST)
So, and I am a bit disappointed that you gave up to provide an example. If you cannot give a single example for something where the lack of purpose implies randomness, your claim that lack of purpose implies randomness can't be that strong. It seems like you cannot come up with evidence for your own position, but only criticize the position of others. Creationists are often blamed for arguing along the line "you cannot explain everything therefore my explanation must be right". We all know that that is a poor argument. It seems like you ask me for an example, rather than do your own homework, because this is the only way you know to argue your case. You still operate under the assumption that I want to convince you of evolution, or the the big bang, while my position merely that you should be able to admit to yourself that your view could be wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:21, 20 December 2007 (EST)
: I DID give you an example, and I reminded you that I gave you an example. Saying that I didn't does not make it so. And I asked you to point out the flaws in the sentence example I gave you, and asked for an example of something that appears to be designed but isn't. You neither pointed out any flaws (calling it "peanuts" is not pointing out a flaw), nor provided the example that I asked for. What do you mean by my view "could be wrong". I'm not claiming infallibility, if that's what you're after. But I am claiming that the evidence is on my side, and if you want me to admit that I "could be wrong", then the onus is on you to show how it "could be wrong". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 21 December 2007 (EST)
: I DID give you an example, and I reminded you that I gave you an example. Saying that I didn't does not make it so. And I asked you to point out the flaws in the sentence example I gave you, and asked for an example of something that appears to be designed but isn't. You neither pointed out any flaws (calling it "peanuts" is not pointing out a flaw), nor provided the example that I asked for. What do you mean by my view "could be wrong". I'm not claiming infallibility, if that's what you're after. But I am claiming that the evidence is on my side, and if you want me to admit that I "could be wrong", then the onus is on you to show how it "could be wrong". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 21 December 2007 (EST)
You repeated the observation that mutations are random, which is probably true and barely contested, but you didn't show that it is the lack of purpose that makes it random. And that was your claim. Because you used the general claim that lack of purpose implies randomness, to characterize all of evolution as random, even the bits that aren't random. So, we are still waiting for an example where randomness is caused by a lack of purpose.
The Creation Study Committee for the Presbyterian Church made very detailed report about how you could be wrong. It is nice that you ask me to come up with a theory, but you might already have noticed that I am fairly reluctant to play along with the creationist game of criticizing others, under the assumption that this proves their theory to be right. If you claim to have the evidence on your side, you could tell us what this evidence is. We will then see how strong your evidence is and if it measures up to your testability criterion. [[User:Order|Order]] 11:49, 21 December 2007 (EST)
===Interpretations===
===Interpretations===