Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-07-2015, 03:04 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
No, the appeal to ignorance is stating an argument as "We don't know, therefore God". Is is not an appeal to lack of evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
16-07-2015, 03:09 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Dawkins calls it the "argument from incredulity", which is perhaps more precise than "ignorance".

"I don't understand how this could have happened. Therefore, it couldn't have happened. Therefore, God." Ta-da!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Grasshopper's post
16-07-2015, 04:32 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Argument from incredulity

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1724-ar...ulity#2738

Incredulity is based on human experience and on what we actually know. For example, the belief in abiogenesis can be strongly doubted, one can be skeptical of it, because it has never been observed and all proposals have lead to a dead end so far. So its more than rational to look somewhere else. What has been observed is biogenesis, life coming from life. What we know is that the complexity in the natural world of living organisms is similar to, in fact much greater than, the complexity of intelligently created devices, such as the clock or the computer. You might implie that incredulity is an unreasonable position, but it is in fact a foundation for all critical thought. Sensible people do not believe things without evidence. Consider the opposite, credulity; there is no context in which that is not a pejorative word! Considering what atheists are willing to believe, can indeed be classed as credulous.

It is also quite proper for a person of one religion or philosophy to be skeptical of the beliefs of another one. The religion of naturalism, which is the basis of evolution, can properly be rejected by a biblical theist. The evolutionist system may be dominant in some parts of the world, but that says nothing about whether it is true. Many have looked at it and found it inadequate; they have found good reasons to be skeptical of it, especially since theism better explains very many features of the natural world.

When i say that something is unbelievable or inconceivable, i give good reasons. If my whole argument were simply an unsupported statement of unbelief, you would have a good point; to say something is unbelievable without giving a reason is not a good argument. But the problem is that you oversimplify; you do not address the reasons for incredulity.

Incredulity is an argument of scepticism about a certain point of view, and the evolutionist and atheist are not innocent of using such an argument. Incredulity, doubt and scepticism about God and special creation, are implicit in every naturalistic explanation about abiogenesis and many other facets of their view points.

This kind of arguments are frequent :

how can a perfect deity create such a messed up world? (translation: it is inconceivable that a perfect deity could create such a messed up world, therefore, since evolution is a theory of messed-up, random natural forces and actions, it must be true)
how can (a certain part of a living organism, e.g., the human eye) be designed when it has this mistake or that problem? (translation: it is inconceivable that an intelligent divine designer could create that supposedly malfunctioning part of the living organism; therefore it must have been formed through random, unintelligent, natural forces, i.e. evolution)

All of these arguments could be accurately classed as arguments of incredulity. If no reason is given, any argument from incredulity is weak.


When a person accuses opposing arguments of
incredulity when they are actually guilty of it themselves, (disbelieving and
being skeptical of what is true and repeatedly proven) and they make attempts
to evade the current evidence and observation instead of dealing with alleged
evidence by refuting it and acknowledging that it exists.
IOW, my argument is not in disbelieving what is objectively factual, it is
actually your argument that is doing this in the face of what we DO observe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2015, 04:56 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
[Image: Jake-Gyllenhaal-Head-GIF.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like jennybee's post
16-07-2015, 04:59 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Here is the thing. Do you believe that you were personally created or intelligently designed and created ?

I'm hoping the answer is no, because then that would lead us to a conversation of "Do you know where babies come from ?"

More than likely, you were born, just like the rest of us and were a product of your fathers sperm and your mothers egg.
And each of your parents were born, in much the same way you were. You weren't an exact copy of either of your parents. You were born different from them. You may possess some or many family traits that were handed down to you. Eye color, the shape of your nose, your height, etc.

When we look at the large diversity of life on the planet, we begin to see how much we all have in common.
Common ancestors, changes in genetic structure over vasts periods of time.

We can trace our origins back pretty far.

We are biological creatures that arrived in our current state through purely natural biological processes.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Rahn127's post
16-07-2015, 05:01 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 04:32 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Argument from incredulity

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1724-ar...ulity#2738

Incredulity is based on human experience and on what we actually know. For example, the belief in abiogenesis can be strongly doubted, one can be skeptical of it, because it has never been observed and all proposals have lead to a dead end so far. So its more than rational to look somewhere else. What has been observed is biogenesis, life coming from life. What we know is that the complexity in the natural world of living organisms is similar to, in fact much greater than, the complexity of intelligently created devices, such as the clock or the computer. You might implie that incredulity is an unreasonable position, but it is in fact a foundation for all critical thought. Sensible people do not believe things without evidence. Consider the opposite, credulity; there is no context in which that is not a pejorative word! Considering what atheists are willing to believe, can indeed be classed as credulous.

It is also quite proper for a person of one religion or philosophy to be skeptical of the beliefs of another one. The religion of naturalism, which is the basis of evolution, can properly be rejected by a biblical theist. The evolutionist system may be dominant in some parts of the world, but that says nothing about whether it is true. Many have looked at it and found it inadequate; they have found good reasons to be skeptical of it, especially since theism better explains very many features of the natural world.

When i say that something is unbelievable or inconceivable, i give good reasons. If my whole argument were simply an unsupported statement of unbelief, you would have a good point; to say something is unbelievable without giving a reason is not a good argument. But the problem is that you oversimplify; you do not address the reasons for incredulity.

Incredulity is an argument of scepticism about a certain point of view, and the evolutionist and atheist are not innocent of using such an argument. Incredulity, doubt and scepticism about God and special creation, are implicit in every naturalistic explanation about abiogenesis and many other facets of their view points.

This kind of arguments are frequent :

how can a perfect deity create such a messed up world? (translation: it is inconceivable that a perfect deity could create such a messed up world, therefore, since evolution is a theory of messed-up, random natural forces and actions, it must be true)
how can (a certain part of a living organism, e.g., the human eye) be designed when it has this mistake or that problem? (translation: it is inconceivable that an intelligent divine designer could create that supposedly malfunctioning part of the living organism; therefore it must have been formed through random, unintelligent, natural forces, i.e. evolution)

All of these arguments could be accurately classed as arguments of incredulity. If no reason is given, any argument from incredulity is weak.


When a person accuses opposing arguments of
incredulity when they are actually guilty of it themselves, (disbelieving and
being skeptical of what is true and repeatedly proven) and they make attempts
to evade the current evidence and observation instead of dealing with alleged
evidence by refuting it and acknowledging that it exists.
IOW, my argument is not in disbelieving what is objectively factual, it is
actually your argument that is doing this in the face of what we DO observe.

There exist self-organizing systems; there exist complex organic compounds where there is no life; there exist membranes of organic compounds not produced by life.
The path from molecules to life is conceivable as we have evidence for all the basic parts.

There is no evidence of any gods.

Your reasoning is specious and your argument is dishonest.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-07-2015, 05:19 PM (This post was last modified: 17-07-2015 09:19 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 04:32 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Argument from incredulity

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1724-ar...ulity#2738

Incredulity is based on human experience and on what we actually know. For example, the belief in abiogenesis can be strongly doubted, one can be skeptical of it, because it has never been observed and all proposals have lead to a dead end so far. So its more than rational to look somewhere else. What has been observed is biogenesis, life coming from life. What we know is that the complexity in the natural world of living organisms is similar to, in fact much greater than, the complexity of intelligently created devices, such as the clock or the computer. You might implie that incredulity is an unreasonable position, but it is in fact a foundation for all critical thought. Sensible people do not believe things without evidence. Consider the opposite, credulity; there is no context in which that is not a pejorative word! Considering what atheists are willing to believe, can indeed be classed as credulous.

It is also quite proper for a person of one religion or philosophy to be skeptical of the beliefs of another one. The religion of naturalism, which is the basis of evolution, can properly be rejected by a biblical theist. The evolutionist system may be dominant in some parts of the world, but that says nothing about whether it is true. Many have looked at it and found it inadequate; they have found good reasons to be skeptical of it, especially since theism better explains very many features of the natural world.

When i say that something is unbelievable or inconceivable, i give good reasons. If my whole argument were simply an unsupported statement of unbelief, you would have a good point; to say something is unbelievable without giving a reason is not a good argument. But the problem is that you oversimplify; you do not address the reasons for incredulity.

Incredulity is an argument of scepticism about a certain point of view, and the evolutionist and atheist are not innocent of using such an argument. Incredulity, doubt and scepticism about God and special creation, are implicit in every naturalistic explanation about abiogenesis and many other facets of their view points.

This kind of arguments are frequent :

how can a perfect deity create such a messed up world? (translation: it is inconceivable that a perfect deity could create such a messed up world, therefore, since evolution is a theory of messed-up, random natural forces and actions, it must be true)
how can (a certain part of a living organism, e.g., the human eye) be designed when it has this mistake or that problem? (translation: it is inconceivable that an intelligent divine designer could create that supposedly malfunctioning part of the living organism; therefore it must have been formed through random, unintelligent, natural forces, i.e. evolution)

All of these arguments could be accurately classed as arguments of incredulity. If no reason is given, any argument from incredulity is weak.


When a person accuses opposing arguments of
incredulity when they are actually guilty of it themselves, (disbelieving and
being skeptical of what is true and repeatedly proven) and they make attempts
to evade the current evidence and observation instead of dealing with alleged
evidence by refuting it and acknowledging that it exists.
IOW, my argument is not in disbelieving what is objectively factual, it is
actually your argument that is doing this in the face of what we DO observe.

Shifting the burden of proof doesn't change the fact that you're committing a fallacy, nor does writing a wall of text lend any more veracity to your claims.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
16-07-2015, 06:04 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 02:32 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Is intelligent design generally, and irreducible complexity particularly, a mere argument of ignorance ?

Yes.

Drinking Beverage

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like unfogged's post
16-07-2015, 06:08 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Just trying to read this crap makes my eye twitch.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
16-07-2015, 06:43 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 04:59 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Here is the thing. Do you believe that you were personally created or intelligently designed and created ?

I'm hoping the answer is no, because then that would lead us to a conversation of "Do you know where babies come from ?"

More than likely, you were born, just like the rest of us and were a product of your fathers sperm and your mothers egg.
And each of your parents were born, in much the same way you were. You weren't an exact copy of either of your parents. You were born different from them. You may possess some or many family traits that were handed down to you. Eye color, the shape of your nose, your height, etc.

When we look at the large diversity of life on the planet, we begin to see how much we all have in common.
Common ancestors, changes in genetic structure over vasts periods of time.

We can trace our origins back pretty far.

We are biological creatures that arrived in our current state through purely natural biological processes.

Your post is evidence that you have little clue about development biology, and how bodies are build , and what factors are involved.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2098-epigenetics
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: