Is evolution hanging on ?

[Splinter]

http://grammarist.com/usage/proof-is-in-the-pudding/

I can see you're going to be doing nothing but nitpicking in this thread.

From same source:

"The original phrase was the proof of the pudding is in the eating"


Dare we say that the saying evolved?

 

[Splinter]

I don't even know what you are saying.

You equate the intelligent designer with a religious type deity?

 

[Xarog]

From same source:

"The original phrase was the proof of the pudding is in the eating"


Dare we say that the saying evolved?

You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that anything I say is inconsistent with the theory of evolution in any way.

 

[Xarog]

You equate the intelligent designer with a religious type deity?

The one in your DNA?

 

[Splinter]

You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that anything I say is inconsistent with the theory of evolution in any way.

But no creator was involved with the evolution

 

[Xarog]

But no creator was involved with the evolution

What evidence do you have to support this assertion?

 

[Splinter]

The one in your DNA?

Stop avoiding - I actually have zero problem with the concept of a mechanism in DNA that helps creatures adapt to the environment by evolving different traits. The more fundamental question (in terms of the religious folks) would be is whether this mechanism was created, or evolved itself.

I am asking you to confirm that this god you referred to is also the creator you referred to (in the posts I quoted originally)

 

[Splinter]

What evidence do you have to support this assertion?

What evidence do you have to refute this assertion?

 

[Xarog]

What evidence do you have to refute this assertion?

I don't need any. You are employing a logical fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[Xarog]

Stop avoiding - I actually have zero problem with the concept of a mechanism in DNA that helps creatures adapt to the environment by evolving different traits. The more fundamental question would be is whether this mechanism was created, or evolved itself.

That suggests that one could meaningfully distinguish between the two. Tell me, how should one make that distinction?

I am asking you to confirm that this god you referred to is also the creator you referred to (in the posts I quoted originally)

Again, that depends on context, since I used more than one frame of reference in the thread, particularly to facilitate a discussion with wayfarer. Your question in this regard has little meaning.

 

[Splinter]

I don't need any. You are employing a logical fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

No I am not. We have been down this road before

The saying changed. It is relatively easy for those so inclined to establish how human beings mashed it. You are now trying to claim that this evolving was influenced by a deity.

I'm asking you to provide some evidence as to this.

 

[Xarog]

No I am not. We have been down this road before

You made a positive claim about the nature of a thing when you have no basis to explain how you ruled the contrary possibility out. You are misrepresenting ignorance as knowledge.

If you cannot recognise this in your argument, then clearly trying to explain anything else to you is a waste of my time as well.

The saying changed. It is relatively easy for those so inclined to establish how human beings mashed it. You are now trying to claim that this evolving was influenced by a deity.

I am doing no such thing, you are shifting the goalposts and trying to shift the burden of proof with it. Logic doesn't work that way.

I'm asking you to provide some evidence as to this.

And I don't need to provide evidence to prove your unsupported assertion wrong. I can simply say that you provided no evidence to support your assertion and therefore it's ipse dixit and not worth bothering further with.

 

[saor]

That suggests that one could meaningfully distinguish between the two. Tell me, how should one make that distinction?

I think in this case they mean it to be a distinction between evolution (an old earth) and creation (a young earth).

 

[Splinter]

That suggests that one could meaningfully distinguish between the two. Tell me, how should one make that distinction?.

Easy. In one, the creator comes forward and claims copyright on the design.

In the other, the creator doesn't exist, and the fevered imaginations that created this figment are the product of a mind that evolved from this DNA,,

Again, that depends on context, since I used more than one frame of reference in the thread, particularly to facilitate a discussion with wayfarer. Your question in this regard has little meaning.

It's a simple question. Stop avoiding it. And it has plenty of meaning, trust me...

 

[Xarog]

I think in this case they mean it to be a distinction between evolution (an old earth) and creation (a young earth).

Oh, well, I don't find the young earth version of events very convincing.

 

[saor]

Easy. In one, the creator comes forward and claims copyright on the design.

So you're talking about a God who set evolution in motion billions of years ago, rather than the 6000 year old earth version?

 

[Xarog]

Easy. In one, the creator comes forward and claims copyright on the design.

And the creator would by necessity do this?

It's a simple question. Stop avoiding it. And it has plenty of meaning, trust me...

Lol. If you have to complain about not getting a response, it's obviously not very good trollbait. And frankly I'm under no obligation to explain myself to you.

 

[Splinter]

You made a positive claim about the nature of a thing when you have no basis to explain how you ruled the contrary possibility out. You are misrepresenting ignorance as knowledge.

If you cannot recognise this in your argument, then clearly trying to explain anything else to you is a waste of my time as well.


I am doing no such thing, you are shifting the goalposts and trying to shift the burden of proof with it. Logic doesn't work that way.


And I don't need to provide evidence to prove your unsupported assertion wrong. I can simply say that you provided no evidence to support your assertion and therefore it's ipse dixit and not worth bothering further with.

Nonsense. You are using a philosophical construct to support idiocy. I can prove humans were directly involved in the evolution of this phrase. I can therefore quite easily state that an unknown, unproven and quite frankly ludicrous deity was not involved; with no fear of contradiction.

The onus is on you, Mr. ipse dixit

 

[Splinter]

So you're talking about a God who set evolution in motion billions of years ago, rather than the 6000 year old earth version?

Nope. I'm wanting to know if either of those are the creator in Xarog's paradigm.

 

[Splinter]

. You are misrepresenting ignorance as knowledge.

.

And the irony.....:crylaugh: