It presumes that because one follows another that a causal relationship exists.
How do you figure?
Originally posted by FeceMan
One what? English pronouns aren't the greatest, and there are several reasons listed.
The premises that you posted presume that the conditions described therein are designed so that life as it exists can exist, when it is more likely that life exists as it does, because of these conditions. This comitts a number of Causal Fallacies.
Originally posted by Devil King
That's not true. I like you.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The premises that you posted presume that the conditions described therein are designed so that life as it exists can exist, when it is more likely that life exists as it does, because of these conditions. This comitts a number of Causal Fallacies.
Originally posted by FeceMan
I think they're arguing from the way that evolutionists say cells arose and the conditions required for that to occur. It would just be pointing out the flaws in their theory.
[list=1][*]Evolution does not make any claims about how life came to exist.
[*]It attempts to point out flaws in the theory by constructing a Straw Man argument, i.e. by pointing out the unlikelihood of life coming to exist by chance alone, when the theory suggests that life came to exist by a combination of chance and the laws of physics, which is highly likely.[/list]
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[list=1][*]Evolution does not make any claims about how life came to exist.[*]It attempts to point out flaws in the theory by constructing a Straw Man argument, i.e. by pointing out the unlikelihood of life coming to exist by chance alone, when the theory suggests that life came to exist by a combination of chance and the laws of physics, which is highly likely.[/list]
Good answer there. 🙂
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[list=1][*]Evolution does not make any claims about how life came to exist.
[*]It attempts to point out flaws in the theory by constructing a Straw Man argument, i.e. by pointing out the unlikelihood of life coming to exist by chance alone, when the theory suggests that life came to exist by a combination of chance and the laws of physics, which is highly likely.[/list]
AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!! Again, religion has gotten the best of everyone here by making the argument exist. A person with common sense could look at the scientific facts and realize they make sense. You throw in a religious nut and he/she makes a remark having to do with "scientific theories are too convinient. God created everything, period!" and the whole thing gets out of whack. I say let people believe what they want... as wrong as they might seem to you. Hopefully we get a definite answer before we die and one side will see just how silly they were all these years.
Originally posted by SpaceMonkey
AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!! Again, religion has gotten the best of everyone here by making the argument exist. A person with common sense could look at the scientific facts and realize they make sense. You throw in a religious nut and he/she makes a remark having to do with "scientific theories are too convinient. God created everything, period!" and the whole thing gets out of whack. I say let people believe what they want... as wrong as they might seem to you. Hopefully we get a definite answer before we die and one side will see just how silly they were all these years.
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
Originally posted by SpaceMonkey
AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!! Again, religion has gotten the best of everyone here by making the argument exist. A person with common sense could look at the scientific facts and realize they make sense. You throw in a religious nut and he/she makes a remark having to do with "scientific theories are too convinient. God created everything, period!" and the whole thing gets out of whack. I say let people believe what they want... as wrong as they might seem to you. Hopefully we get a definite answer before we die and one side will see just how silly they were all these years.
My apologies, dear boy, but you are an ignoramous. That is not at all what "religious nuts" say.
Also, there will never be definite proof of evolution--you know what I mean, so no one jump down my throat--because we cannot actually observe it.
(Again, don't jump down my ****ing throat. I'm talking about the progression of single-celled organisms to multicellular organisms.)