Not that important, but I detest the idea that the views of someone making a fallacious argument can automatically be rejected. You might agree, I guess.
Actually, I do believe that the views of someone making a fallacious argument can automatically be rejected.
The ID variety of creationism (and I hasten to add that I am not refering to you with this) tries to explain speciation by amploying a creator, which by their own definition must be more complex than his creation and therefore also by their definition has to have been created by someone even more complex and so on.
I say nothing about how complex the creator or creators are, because I simply don't know. Furthermore, I say nothing about who or what created it or them, if anyone or anything, because again I don't know.
That is the 'beautiful' part I was refering to - evolution does not explain this, and doesn't need to.
If evolutionists claim that I have to explain where the designer came from (I don't), then yes, I turn their own argument around and tell them that they have to explain where the first life came from.
You see, you just can't have it both ways, and both of us can play the same games. If I have to explain something that my theory doesn't address, then so do you.
If your point is that we don't have all the answers, I agree with you. You don't either. None of us do.
Your use of this construct sounds much like a fallacious argument I heard a few times before, but I might be wrong. But just in case: That there is no human being that has every answer to every subject does not mean that everyone is missing the same answers or that every viewpoint is automatically equally informed.
Perhaps you missed it, so I will say it again. His point was that we don't have all the answers. I made the same point back at him - he doesn't either. If it's a good argument for him, it's a good argument for me. We are all playing by the same rules here, whether you like it or not.
The reaseon we know that a car was built by a complex being is that we can watch them do it and talk to the creators.
But that's bullshit, because if we dug an old car up out of the crust of the earth, you'd still say it was designed, even though no one saw it designed and no one can talk to the creator. If we found hieroglyphics on the walls of a cave on Mars, you'd say those were designed too, even though no one saw it happen. In fact, we've found heiroglyphs and drawings in caves on earth, even though no one saw anyone do Jack. They are attributed to cavemen, Neanderthals, whatever.
And quit saying "complex being." No one has made any statements as to the complexity of the being involved, because no one knows.
Scientists like facts.
Oh no they don't. The people who claim most adamantly that they like facts, banging their fists on the table while doing it, are the people who like facts the least.
The hypothesis that complexity can only arise from complexity can be falsified.
I never said that complexity can only arise from complexity. I made no statements on this either way.
Then you slightly change the enviroment of one of the containers. The bacteria will adaps and after some time will be genetically different than the bacteria in the container that did not change.
Nope. No evolution took place.
Your actual argument being ? Flat out denial is not sufficient. Species adapt to their surroundings, evolution.
Nothing happens just because you say it does. This is a bare assertion.
Oh - 'CD said so' is an appeal to authority, by the way.
I made no appeal to authority. You don't even know enough about what was said to know what my point was, even though I made it again and again throughout this discussion ad nauseum.
Apparently you accuse the whole scientific field involved in the study of evolution of cherry picking. I guess you are not aware of it, but to a scientist this is a very grave insult.
But I am aware of it. So what?
I REALLY suggest you try to understand the theory of evolution before you try to argue against it.
What the hell are you talking about? And who do you think you are talking to? I do understand the "theory" of evolution (what's there to understand LOL?). I'll put my knowledge of the theory of evolution up against anyone's. I suggest you take some of your own advice.
The difference (and something many people fail to see) between evolution and ID is that evo doesn't say anything about origin of life, only of species.
Again, we all play by the same rules here. We don't say anything about the origin of the designer or designers either.
So an untestable claim for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being is "as good" as an explanation that explains the same fact with testable mechanisms ?
LOL, "explains the same fact with testable mechanisms." Boy is that rich, LOL.
