I have heard about this bit of nonsense and I have heard of the debunk to it.
Creationist claim that Bacterial Flagella cannot evolve because each consists of many parts and they claim that it cannot function if just one of those parts is missing.
The debunk to this is just the trivial observation that bacteria have been found with some or even most of those parts missing and yet the whole structure just functions just fine. So their claim is proven false.
Next....
12 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyRight, good luck changing the mind of self lobotomized people.
I have heard about this bit of nonsense and I have heard of the debunk to it.
Creationist claim that Bacterial Flagella cannot evolve because each consists of many parts and they claim that it cannot function if just one of those parts is missing.
The debunk to this is just the trivial observation that bacteria have been found with some or even most of those ...[text shortened]... nd yet the whole structure just functions just fine. So their claim is proven false.
Next....
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe atheist evil-lutioninsts have a great incentive to continue to lie to support their deception that their is no creator God. Why should they tell us the truth when they do not believe in a moral authority that they must eventually answer to for what they have done while in the body?
Ah yes, the argument from ignorance. "I don't understand X, therefore X is wrong."
The Instructor
14 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, what they are saying is there is no BIBLE god. Whether or not there are gods is another story. We feel quite safe in saying there is no such a being as the man made bible god.
The atheist evil-lutioninsts have a great incentive to continue to lie to support their deception that their is no creator God. Why should they tell us the truth when they do not believe in a moral authority that they must eventually answer to for what they have done while in the body?
The Instructor
You can shut off your brain till hell freezes over, we don't give a shyte but that will not cause the bible god to come forth.
It's been 2000 years now and not a peep out of your so-called god. Time to realize it's time to move on, release your self lobotomized brain and join the human race.
14 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThis informal fallacy, on the other hand, is known as "poisoning the well". Even if it were true that all atheists and people who accept modern biology assert that there is "no creator God" and don't believe in a "moral authority" (as it happens, both premises are false), it would hardly be relevant to evolution theory, which does not depend on any kind of moral, religious or philosophical dogma (except perhaps the scientific method).
The atheist evil-lutioninsts have a great incentive to continue to lie to support their deception that their is no creator God. Why should they tell us the truth when they do not believe in a moral authority that they must eventually answer to for what they have done while in the body?
The Instructor
15 Jul 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraCan you show proof of this?
This informal fallacy, on the other hand, is known as "poisoning the well". Even if it were true that all atheists and people who accept modern biology assert that there is "no creator God" and don't believe in a "moral authority" (as it happens, both premises are false), it would hardly be relevant to evolution theory, which does not depend on any kind of moral, religious or philosophical dogma (except perhaps the scientific method).
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindswhich part? He made at least two assertions that no rational person would dispute because only trivial observations confirm them.
Can you show proof of this?
The Instructor
For example, it is a trivial observation that there exists theists that accept modern biology which includes evolution. So this trivial observation is proof enough that you can both believe there is a god and believe evolution theory.
Do you deny such theists exist?
Another trivial observation is that evolution theory is not a theory of morality nor one that says a god either does or does not exist nor does that theory make any predictions of either nor is supported by either. So this trivial observation is proof enough that evolution doesn't depend on these other things and those other things are not even relevant.
If you deny this, then exactly which part of evolution theory depends on those other things and how so?
15 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyProof that the belief in a moral authority, like God, is not relevant to evilution theory.
which part? He made several assertions that no rational person would dispute because only trivial observations confirm them.
For example, it is a trivial observation that there exists people that accept modern biology (which including evolution) that are theists. So this trivial evolution is proof enough that you can both believe there is a god and believe ev ...[text shortened]... ither. So this trivial evolution is proof enough that evolution doesn't depend on these things.
Would we have had all those fake missing link claims for ape to human, if they had really believed in a moral authority, like the God of the Holy Bible, that condemned liars? Would we have had all those fake drawings of the ape changing to the caveman and the fish changing to an amphibian or mammal or reptile to a bird, if they believed in a moral authority? Why should anyone trust that there are not many more liars trying to push off their evilutionary ideas?
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHinds
Proof that the belief in a moral authority, like God, is not relevant to evilution theory.
Would we have had all those fake missing link claims for ape to human, if they had really believed in a moral authority, like the God of the Holy Bible, that condemned liars? Would we have had all those fake drawings of the ape changing to the caveman and the fish ...[text shortened]... hat there are not many more liars trying to push off their evilutionary ideas?
The Instructor
Proof that the belief in a moral authority, like God, is not relevant to evolution theory.
Yes, that is what we just said.
Would we have had all those fake missing link claims for ape to human,
I believe there was a couple of hoaxes by some people who just wanted publicity but there is no evidence that any of the links we accept today are fakes and no rational reason to believe they might be.
EVEN if, extremely hypothetically, all those links are fakes, that still has nothing to do with evolution theory that doesn't specify exactly what the missing links should be nor specify exactly which links we think we have found are fakes if any are fakes. Evolution theory is not a theory of which things are fakes and which are genuine and thus cannot be rationally criticized on the bases of finding fakes.
Why should anyone trust that there are not many more liars trying to push off their evolutionary ideas?
EVEN if, hypothetically, those “liars” with that primary agenda existed (which they don't -other than in you delusional mind), evolution theory has nothing to do with them nor moral authority thus this would not be irrelevant.
15 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyYour delusional mind. 😏Proof that the belief in a moral authority, like God, is not relevant to evolution theory.
Yes, that is what we just said.Would we have had all those fake missing link claims for ape to human,
I believe there was a couple of hoaxes by some people who just wanted publicity but there is no evidence that any of the l ...[text shortened]... tion theory has nothing to do with them nor moral authority thus this would not be irrelevant.
The Instructor
15 Jul 13
Originally posted by humymisprint:Proof that the belief in a moral authority, like God, is not relevant to evolution theory.
Yes, that is what we just said.Would we have had all those fake missing link claims for ape to human,
I believe there was a couple of hoaxes by some people who just wanted publicity but there is no evidence that any of the l ...[text shortened]... tion theory has nothing to do with them nor moral authority thus this would not be irrelevant.
"...would not be irrelevant."
at the end of that post should have been:
"...would not be relevant."