Evidence for God from Science

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote: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 cannot prove a negative"?

That doesn't constitute proof, either. You might have missed the flamingo, perhaps it is very small.

Prove that no camera can record it's own construction.

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 see why.

Major Premise: No camera can record it's own construction
Minor premise 1: A camera is a complex system of parts
Minor Premise 2: The parts in isolation of each other do not form a camera capable of recording images
Conclusion: The camera cannot take pictures of its own parts being assembled into a working unit

August wrote: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 see why.

Major Premise: No camera can record it's own construction
Minor premise 1: A camera is a complex system of parts
Minor Premise 2: The parts in isolation of each other do not form a camera capable of recording images
Conclusion: The camera cannot take pictures of its own parts being assembled into a working unit

The flamingos you are familiar with are quite big, but have you seen all flamingos?

Imagine we have a large mirror, one light-year away. All we have to do is wait a little under two years, then the camera can record its own construction.

Any more?

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote: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 see why.

Major Premise: No camera can record it's own construction
Minor premise 1: A camera is a complex system of parts
Minor Premise 2: The parts in isolation of each other do not form a camera capable of recording images
Conclusion: The camera cannot take pictures of its own parts being assembled into a working unit

The flamingos you are familiar with are quite big, but have you seen all flamingos?

Imagine we have a large mirror, one light-year away. All we have to do is wait a little under two years, then the camera can record its own construction.

Any more?

So, I have humored you, why don't you answer my simple question? Have you conclusively proven that "You can't prove a negative?"

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, it will be recording a one-year-old image of that construction. Not the same thing.

August wrote: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, it will be recording a one-year-old image of that construction. Not the same thing.

I don't need to prove small flamingos don't exist, because you are using the argument from ignorance. You are ignorant of small flamingos, therefore you say they don't exist, but, crucially, you can't prove they don't exist.

The camera is clearly recording its own construction.

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote: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, it will be recording a one-year-old image of that construction. Not the same thing.

I don't need to prove small flamingos don't exist, because you are using the argument from ignorance. You are ignorant of small flamingos, therefore you say they don't exist, but, crucially, you can't prove they don't exist.

The camera is clearly recording its own construction.

Still have not answered my question.

And you have added to my syllogism in the camera argument, so your objection does not hold true, and my original argument stands.

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?

Sceptic wrote:

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 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.

Sceptic wrote:You can't "prove" a negative. For example, you can't prove The Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. The appendix is an example of suboptimal "design", though, as is a hackable computer.

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

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.

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!

Sceptic wrote:

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.

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 over.

Sceptic wrote:

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!

Unfortunately Darwinian evolution (the god of chance) is evidence free... There is no proof of it. Sorry.

Maybe you would like to tackle some of the questions here?

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... WBK2TtU7kc

August wrote: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 over.

I have shown it's a logical fallacy.

We've left the RLN because it makes creationists uneasy.

Gman wrote: Unfortunately Darwinian evolution (the god of chance) is evidence free... There is no proof of it. Sorry.

Maybe you would like to tackle some of the questions here?

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... WBK2TtU7kc

There's a ton of evidence in favour, and none whatsoever against.

You want me to refute an entire page? that's a "Gish gallop" if ever there was one! But what I've read of it is the usual half-understood creationist representation of evolution.

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote: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 over.

I have shown it's a logical fallacy.

We've left the RLN because it makes creationists uneasy.

You have not shown anything of the sort. You have not even started to deal with any formal logic, all you have done was to provide a couple of cute but absurd answers to examples.

Lol, and don't flatter yourself about the RLN issue. The RLN discussion ended because you, as you did throughout this whole discussion, refused to answer questions in a straightforward and intellectually honest fashion, because you are simply unable to do so. Creationists do not get uneasy because evolutionists are unable to string a coherent argument together, and then assert victory.