Really? That's fascinating. Z never presents any science and clings to a singular circular logic to support his conclusion. Teleologist has presented at least one attempt to prove his point with a peer-reviewed article. Although, it does appear that he may not have actually read the article before presenting it, because it doesn't really support his position. Oh well, I guess I'm wasting my time, here. Thanks for the info.
Anyone that thinks Teleologist and ZZZ are same person is an idiot. There is clear distinction between our posts as John has noted.
I continue to repeat the points that you avoid dealing with... Namely there is no evidence that change is random, and not designed. There is only lack of evidence of a designer, because you have no test for a designer, and a lack of evidence is not proof of non design. It is the ostrich argument...
The full on ad hominem starts from the so called "reasonable" "logical" scientific ET members. Classic... Score one for the fallacy crew...
John Dough wrote: No, it's your reasoning that is silly. Refuting YEC rules out certain tenets of young earth creationism such as the fixity of species and an earth just 6,000-10,000 years old but it doesn't touch design per se. Modern design hypotheses posit that life is the product of advanced bioengineering and that evolution was front-loaded such that its unfolding was channeled.
No, it's your reasoning that is silly. Refuting YEC rules out certain tenets of young earth creationism such as the fixity of species and an earth just 6,000-10,000 years old but it doesn't touch design per se. Modern design hypotheses posit that life is the product of advanced bioengineering and that evolution was front-loaded such that its unfolding was channeled. [/QUOTE] First you admit that certain tenents of YEC are refuted; then you deny that design is touched. YEC claims a designer created the Earth 6,000 years ago, and the geological evidence demonstrates that this is false. Thus, this is a design theory and it is refuted. Your second statement is a totally different issue. You state a hypothesis that life is the product of advanced bioengineering and that evolution was front loaded. This is actually two different hypotheses. Regardless, in order to convert the hypotheses to science you must conduct an experiment to verify your hypothesis. So, once again, I will ask you: what is that experiment?
OK, here, I'll challenge you to a duel, Z. Each of us gets to ask the other a question in turn. There are only three possible responses to any question: 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don't know. No amplification of any answer is permitted. If a person answers "I don't know," then the other person gets to ask another question, until there is either a "Yes" or "No" response from the person who said "I don't know." First person who answers in any way other than the above loses. If you accept, I'll keep discussing the issue with you. If not, then you can argue with others, because from my perspective, you are not actually discussing anything -- you're just repeating the same thing over and over -- so there's nothing really to discuss.
LOL Good luck with that. Although it looks like the light bulb may have just popped on for you, regarding the debating style of the guy....
John Dough wrote: I read the article and I doubt that you understand my position. In any event, you were claiming that the evolutionary process is random. The article I posted refutes this. I don't see how it can be made any more explicit. The title of the article is: A Biochemical Mechanism for Non-random Mutations and Evolution What part of non-random don't you understand? Do you think the introduction contradicts what follows? The introduction says: This flat out refutes your contention that evolution is random. Another quote from the introduction: Once again, this refutes your claim that evolution is random. Evolution uses mechanisms that are not random and that guide evolution in specific directions.