Evidence for God from Science

August wrote:And that just happened by chance, I guess. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, please point me to a study on that.

There you go with the "chance" thing again!

Google might help.

August wrote:Oh please.

Please what?

You can apply a syllogism with a negative premise to many situations. There are ten forms of syllogisms that can lead to a negative conclusion. But ok, how many examples do you want? There is no flamingo in my pocket right now. Proof: I opened my pocket and looked, it is empty. We are still waiting...

A nice recitation of the Darwinian fairy tale. Unfortunately you have not shown what causes gene drift, for example. There are loads of evidence showing the improbability of the mechanisms you describe being able to produce what evo's claim it does. But let's make it easy. Why don't you pick any an...

godslanguage wrote:I'm not sure why you brought this up as its completely irrelevant to my argument. Either way, I will leave you in the capable hands of August, Zoegirl and Byblos.

You seemed to be suggesting that biological morphology shows evidence of a designer. It doesn't.

August wrote: Major Premise: Negatives cannot be proven

There are many examples of the major premise failing

Give one (outside of mathematics).

If everything, according to evolutionists, did not happen by chance, what caused it then? Evolution is descent with modification. Modification occcurs via genetic drift and gene mutation. The resultant modified organisms are then subject to natural selection, alongside unmodified organisms. This is...

I'm not changing the subject, you could not get past your own question-begging and provide proof for your assertions around the RLN, so it was getting repetitive, just like your refusal to answer a straight question about your proof that I have now asked multiple times. Are you claiming that the ar...

So if the first in the series has not been accounted for, on what basis can it be extrapolated backwards or forward? Or you can just halt all scientific progress, call it evolution and say everything happened by chance. Via multiple lines of scientific evidence, and logical deduction. That's how sc...

August wrote:So are you saying that you have proven: "You can't prove a negative"

I am saying that is is the argument from ignorance, a well-known logical fallacy.

You seem to want to change the subject from the rather inconvenient RLN. I can't say I blame you!

August wrote:This has nothing to do with the argument from ignorance. You just can't prove what you asserting.

OK, prove that it isn't the argument from ignorance. I say that it is, prove me wrong.

And in any case, evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life, so irrelevent once again. Care to explain how you can account for a series without accounting for the first in a series? By observation of the behaviour of the members of the series. The first in the series has not (yet...

You made that statement, now prove it. Nice try, but you are not going to shift the burden of proof to me here. As soon as you provide positive proof for your statement, I will be happy to oblige. Why are we wasting time re-inventing the wheel? The burden of proof is obviously on you. because you a...

Sigh. If you cannot prove it, then say so. What you showed had nothing to do with your statement, it was a muddled combination of the law of identity and the law of the excluded middle. But you don't seem to able or willing to answer a straight question. Do you believe you have proven that "Yo...

Going to start with the insults now? You don't know anything about me, so if you want to do that, then go ahead. I get what you are saying, you just have not shown that it is necessarily better. What insult? It was a question. It would be far better, because the RLN fibres would be shorter, and les...