vyo476
You can clean all this up right now and prove my contention false simply by giving us a plausible explanation of how those 6 billion complex chemicals arranged themselves into the proper slot. So far no one in this forum has.
You can also prove my contention wrong by citing a naturally occurring code or language. None exist but you are free to try.
Until you point out a naturally occurring code or language (any code that can be demonstrated as requiring no intelligence), then the smart money is on the bird in the hand.
Outside of mathematics, there are NO absolute proofs of anything. You consider the preponderance of existing evidence and reach a reasonable conclusion.
Some people of science consider a probability of 1 in 1,000,000 as indication that an event is effectively impossible. The probability of 6,000,000,000 complex chemicals arranging themselves in the proper sequence is trillions of times smaller than 1 in a million.
Using your "lack of evidence is no evidence" logic, then you can't rule out the existence of:
- UFO's
- Bigfoot
- Ghosts
- The Loch Ness Monster
So, vyo, which of the above list do you believe in? Remember, since there is no definitive proof any of these don't exist, then you can't rule out any of the above. I guess you must believe a Bigfoot may be out there somewhere cuz there ain’t no proof there ain’t no Bigfoot.
“People often assume that scientists are in the business of trying to prove hypotheses or theories. This assumption is incorrect because hypotheses can never be proved; they can only be disproved. A hypothesis that fails one or more tests is considered disproved and it is discarded. If it is not disproved after being tested in many different ways, we become more confident that it is correct. A hypothesis is valid as long as it explains the behavior of the system it describes, but it is always possible that it will have to be revised or discarded based on new results.”
David C. Bolton, Ph.D.
Department of Molecular Biology, New York State Institute for Basic Research
So disprove my contention, vyo. Come on coyote. robeph, let me have your best shot. Prove me wrong. So far you haven’t. I have demonstrated a serious flaw in your precious religion of Macroevolution. Show me the light. Prove my contentions are wrong. I mean, I must be wrong. I can't be right, can I?
“ A hypothesis that fails one or more tests is considered disproven and is discarded”. Naturalistic Evolution has sufficient flaws to be discarded except that the alternative is too terrible for God Deniers to acknowledge. I mean, we just can’t even acknowledge the possibility of the existence of God. That means our lives might have some purpose and that there might be higher values than the values we humans create. That means we might have to answer for our actions and we just don’t want to do that. So we continue to patch up the holes in Macroevolution and hope something better comes along before the MacroE ship sinks.
Face the truth, vyo. You MUST believe in MacroEvolution because you don’t want to believe in God. The alternative to MacroE is just too scary. So regardless of how many logical, mathemaical and scientific problems with MacroE, you must embrace it.
Your belief system is based less on a belief and more on a rejection of the alternative.
