Evidence for God from Science

So you have proven a negative? I thought we had left the RLN discussion because you could not prove what you were asserting by providing a standard for good design, measurements and an analysis of how it was meeting/not meeting the standard, and you just kept repeating the same assertion over and o...

Gman wrote:

Sceptic wrote: It makes no difference to "my" case, as natural selection is not random.

Complete baloney.... Ever study biology before?

Yes I have, you?

August wrote:Exactly. If your way of coming to know things is random, how do you know it?

We are talking about genetic drift, not my way of coming to know things.

Gman wrote:Tooth fairy? You mean the evolutionary tooth fairy right? Kind of like a Vegas side show..

No, but the creationist TF will do. Completely evidence-free!

August wrote:So have you proven that "You can't prove negatives?" A simple yes or no will do.

Like I said, I have many more examples...we can play this game for years.

Yes, I have shown it's a logical fallacy.

Why bother playing the game, it's only a diversionary tactic away from that pesky old RLN.

August wrote:If we live in a random world, how can you know anything?

Huh?

August wrote:Still have not answered my question.

Yes I have. You might not like my answer, but I answered. Proving a negative is a logical fallacy. End of.

Any more ideas about the RLN?

So random+non-random=non-random? Nonsense. The starting point is random chance, so everything after that is a result of random chance...no matter what selection mechanisms, intelligent or otherwise, is at work. Define "random chance". Ask your buddies who wrote the article. Well, I was as...

Why don't you prove that small invisible flamingo's exist? Instead of me going around the world to try and see all flamingo's, it will be much easier for you to just prove that to me. Your answer about the camera, although cute, is not valid. The camera will not be recording it's own construction, ...

August wrote:So random+non-random=non-random? Nonsense. The starting point is random chance, so everything after that is a result of random chance...no matter what selection mechanisms, intelligent or otherwise, is at work.

Define "random chance".

No, flamingo's are quite big. Perhaps you are ignorant of what flamingo's actually look like? But it sure is impressive for to appeal to very small invisible flamingo's, that sure shows your logic and rationality. Since you have refused multiple times to answer a simple question, I guess we can now...

From the first line of the Wikipedia article you submitted: "Genetic drift or allelic drift is the change in the relative frequency in which a gene variant (allele) occurs in a population due to random sampling and chance " Oops. That does not really help your case, now does it? It makes ...

No, I have proven that there isn't. I put my hand in there and I felt. But since you want to continue, here is another example: No camera can record it's own construction. Like I said, there are many. So, for the umpteenth time, is it your contention that you have conclusively proven that "You...

Well, you have not explained what governs gene drift. If you cannot point me to a study that is fine. We will just stand with that incredible conclusion that Staphylococcus Aureus lost some function and turned into MRSA, without you demonstrating which genes mutated and acted on which proteins unde...

August wrote:So why don't you prove there is an invisible flamingo in my pocket. I contend there is not.

The whole point is, you can't prove that there isn't. You might think that there isn't, and I might even agree. This is the argument from ignorance.