Is evolution hanging on ?

Splinter said:
From same source:

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


Dare we say that the saying evolved? :whistle:
Click to expand...
You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that anything I say is inconsistent with the theory of evolution in any way.
 
Xarog said:
You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that anything I say is inconsistent with the theory of evolution in any way.
Click to expand...

But no creator was involved with the evolution ;)
 
Xarog said:
The one in your DNA?
Click to expand...

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)
 
Last edited:
Splinter said:
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.
Click to expand...
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)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Xarog said:
I don't need any. You are employing a logical fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Click to expand...

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.
 
Splinter said:
No I am not. We have been down this road before ;)
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Xarog said:
That suggests that one could meaningfully distinguish between the two. Tell me, how should one make that distinction?
Click to expand...
I think in this case they mean it to be a distinction between evolution (an old earth) and creation (a young earth).
 
Xarog said:
That suggests that one could meaningfully distinguish between the two. Tell me, how should one make that distinction?.
Click to expand...

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,,


Xarog said:
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.
Click to expand...


It's a simple question. Stop avoiding it. And it has plenty of meaning, trust me... ;)
 
saor said:
I think in this case they mean it to be a distinction between evolution (an old earth) and creation (a young earth).
Click to expand...
Oh, well, I don't find the young earth version of events very convincing.
 
Splinter said:
Easy. In one, the creator comes forward and claims copyright on the design.
Click to expand...
So you're talking about a God who set evolution in motion billions of years ago, rather than the 6000 year old earth version?
 
Splinter said:
Easy. In one, the creator comes forward and claims copyright on the design.
Click to expand...
And the creator would by necessity do this?

It's a simple question. Stop avoiding it. And it has plenty of meaning, trust me... ;)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Xarog said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
saor said:
So you're talking about a God who set evolution in motion billions of years ago, rather than the 6000 year old earth version?
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm wanting to know if either of those are the creator in Xarog's paradigm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X