Atheist Manifesto

[LuvRPgrl]

You might argue that it's EVIDENCE for a lack of proof, however, evidence and proof are two different things.

Not always.

sometimes, not always. I only have to prove it true ONE time, and my pov is correct, thats SOMETIMES lack of evidence is PROOF.

Ever hear of a geiger counter?

figure it out.

 

[Dr Grump]

ANY open minded fairly intelligent human being.

I guess if we were walking in a forest and we saw a three story house complete with windows and opening doors fabricated out of sticks and twine and it even had a set of crude, but obvious blue prints drawn on a piece of paper and stuffed inside, you wouldnt be able to realize it couldnt have occured by accident on its own? Its simple basic deduction, deduction has been used by the scientific community for centuries, but suddenly the evolutionists want to dismiss it as a scientific tool.


Its ok, there is a new pile of sand over to your right to stick your head into.

And that is what has happened with DNA and cells?? RATFLMAO!! Boy oh boy.....okayyyyyyyyyy

 

[MissileMan]

Not always.

sometimes, not always. I only have to prove it true ONE time, and my pov is correct, thats SOMETIMES lack of evidence is PROOF.

Ever hear of a geiger counter?

figure it out.

That wasn't your original statement was it?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I was, after all, YOUR totally-ridiculous argument that I quoted. It's a shame you didn't recognize it as gobbledy gook before YOU posted it.

so, your refutation is merely stating your opinion?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Says who?

LOGICAL deduction. I know logic is quite foreign to the liberal thinking mind, but it really does exist. HONESTLY.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You might argue that it's EVIDENCE for a lack of proof, however, evidence and proof are two different things.

Nope. MY post was in response to your assertation:
"A lack of proof can never prove anything."

A lack of proof proves you have a lack of proof. It is self evident.

However, that is irrelevant in the real world. In the real world, since Im a pragmatist at heart, is what matters. In the real world, a lack of proof or evidence, which sometimes the terms are interchangable, SOMETIMES they are, can be proof of something.

Think Geiger counter. A lack of detection of radioactivity proves something wasnt exposed to radiation. Hence, a lack of proof has proven something.

Sean declares his metal bracelet was exposed to radiation levels (of a degree that would cause it to be currently contaminated). A geiger counter is used to try to detect radiation levels on his bracelet. Nothing is detected. That is a lack of proof as Sean needs to prove his statement true by showing a reading on the geiger counter. Seans lack of proof, proves the bracelet was NOT exposed to radiation (assuming it is made of a type of metal that if exposed to radiation, it will become radioactive).

 

[MissileMan]

so, your refutation is merely stating your opinion?

I think you're confused. I quoted your original argument, adding in the submachine guns, and changed the outcome of your assertion. My adding the guns was just as arbitrary as your making the one group larger, more powerful males. I did it to point out that your conclusion was meaningless, because you applied an arbitrary circumstance in order to make it come true.

 

[MissileMan]

Think Geiger counter. A lack of detection of radioactivity proves something wasnt exposed to radiation. Hence, a lack of proof has proven something.

Sean declares his metal bracelet was exposed to radiation levels (of a degree that would cause it to be currently contaminated). A geiger counter is used to try to detect radiation levels on his bracelet. Nothing is detected. That is a lack of proof as Sean needs to prove his statement true by showing a reading on the geiger counter. Seans lack of proof, proves the bracelet was NOT exposed to radiation (assuming it is made of a type of metal that if exposed to radiation, it will become radioactive).

Except the lack of radiation is proof, not the absence of proof. An absence of proof can only be used to make a speculation.

 

[Dr Grump]

LOGICAL deduction. I know logic is quite foreign to the liberal thinking mind, but it really does exist. HONESTLY.

Your logic is very flawed. Think on it a little....

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I think you're confused. I quoted your original argument, adding in the submachine guns, and changed the outcome of your assertion. My adding the guns was just as arbitrary as your making the one group larger, more powerful males. I did it to point out that your conclusion was meaningless, because you applied an arbitrary circumstance in order to make it come true.

I didnt make the one group LARGER, more powerful males. I made the one group males only, as compared to the other group which would have females.
Lets make this clear. One group is all male. One group has a female or two. Hence, if all males are equal in size and strength, as are all females, then the all male group would have an advantage in size and strength as a group, because one of their males would be compared to one of the females of the replicating group, and since males are bigger and stronger for humans, the non replicating group overall would be bigger and stronger.

The purpose for that is it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to have one group with females to represent the replicating group to the non replicating group.

What is in question is, is replicating oneself consistent with the theory of survival of the fittest. Hence we must compare a replicating group (which requires males and females) to a non replicating group (which would require only males). Making this distinction is a REQUIREMENT, hence, not arbitrary as is your introduction of machinge guns.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Except the lack of radiation is proof, not the absence of proof. An absence of proof can only be used to make a speculation.

This is where it gets into sematics. I think the original statement should read "a lack of evidence does not prove anything", as the statement "a lack of proof is not proof of anything". The latter statement is false on its face. As a "lack of proof" is proof that you have no proof, by its very definition, hence " a lack of proof is not proof of anything" is a non sensical self defeating statement.

Now, as for "a lack of evidence can never prove anything" the radiation example proves that statement in error.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Your logic is very flawed. Think on it a little....

My logic? Please quote exactly which logic I presented that you claim is flawed, otherwise I cannot respond.

 

[jillian]

My logic? Please quote exactly which logic I presented that you claim is flawed, otherwise I cannot respond.

All of it, luv.

 

[Dr Grump]

My logic? Please quote exactly which logic I presented that you claim is flawed, otherwise I cannot respond.

Well, since you're too lazy to go look up your original supposition, I'll do it for you. This is what you said:

it doesnt solve the problem that the single cell is simply wayyyyyy tooo complicated to have evolved on its own

And I say your logic is flawed. The cell may seem complicated to you, but I bet to a scientist on top of their game, it is probably quite simple. In days gone by, creating fire was seen as complicated, the combustion engine was complicated, how to build a roof without it collapsing gave engineers pause....all these things at one time were complicated, until solutions were found. This has happened throughout history. At the moment, you think cells are way too complicated so therefore must have had some input from a higher being or source. Your logic doesn't stack up with similar examples over history. Eventually (if not presently) cell structure will not seem so complicated....

 

[MissileMan]

I didnt make the one group LARGER, more powerful males. I made the one group males only, as compared to the other group which would have females.
Lets make this clear. One group is all male. One group has a female or two. Hence, if all males are equal in size and strength, as are all females, then the all male group would have an advantage in size and strength as a group, because one of their males would be compared to one of the females of the replicating group, and since males are bigger and stronger for humans, the non replicating group overall would be bigger and stronger.

The purpose for that is it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to have one group with females to represent the replicating group to the non replicating group.

What is in question is, is replicating oneself consistent with the theory of survival of the fittest. Hence we must compare a replicating group (which requires males and females) to a non replicating group (which would require only males). Making this distinction is a REQUIREMENT, hence, not arbitrary as is your introduction of machinge guns.

You added a qualifier to the non-replicating group that ensured their winning the battle. You added this qualifier arbitrarily. You've made an argument that you believe is infallible, but it only appears to be based on your arbitrary qualifiers. If you're still confused, substitute your non-replicating group of all males with a non-replicating group of all females and rerun your scenario. Did the lightbulb turn on yet?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

This is where it gets into sematics. I think the original statement should read "a lack of evidence does not prove anything", as the statement "a lack of proof is not proof of anything". The latter statement is false on its face. As a "lack of proof" is proof that you have no proof, by its very definition, hence " a lack of proof is not proof of anything" is a non sensical self defeating statement.

Your logic is not absolute. A lack of proof alone is not sufficient in proving that you have no proof. Ever.

 

[MissileMan]

This is where it gets into sematics. I think the original statement should read "a lack of evidence does not prove anything", as the statement "a lack of proof is not proof of anything". The latter statement is false on its face. As a "lack of proof" is proof that you have no proof, by its very definition, hence " a lack of proof is not proof of anything" is a non sensical self defeating statement.

Now, as for "a lack of evidence can never prove anything" the radiation example proves that statement in error.

Evidence and proof are not the same thing. Proof points to the truth of a matter. Evidence may or may not point to the truth. I'm not sure why you keep trying to call a null (lack of proof or lack of evidence) something that it's not. The lack of something is a vacuum. If "lack of proof" and "lack of evidence" were beverages and you had an infinite amount of each, you'd die of thirst.

The negative reading on the geiger counter is evidence, not the lack of evidence.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Well, since you're too lazy to go look up your original supposition, I'll do it for you. This is what you said:

it doesnt solve the problem that the single cell is simply wayyyyyy tooo complicated to have evolved on its own

And I say your logic is flawed. The cell may seem complicated to you, but I bet to a scientist on top of their game, it is probably quite simple. In days gone by, creating fire was seen as complicated, the combustion engine was complicated, how to build a roof without it collapsing gave engineers pause....all these things at one time were complicated, until solutions were found. This has happened throughout history. At the moment, you think cells are way too complicated so therefore must have had some input from a higher being or source. Your logic doesn't stack up with similar examples over history. Eventually (if not presently) cell structure will not seem so complicated....

This is so funny. Jillian tells me "all of it" and you call me lazy for not looking up my "original message", which is indicating you were tooo vague in your accusation.

You are using examples of needing an intelligent creator to prove that something else doesnt need one?

As for the amount of complexity of the single cell, it doesnt matter how complicated it "seems" or how complicated it is in comparision to other complexities, all that matters is, if it is complicated enough to not be able to evolve on its own. The number of chemicals and molecues that would have had to "float" together at just the right precise time, and in just the right precise order, is simply too much for it to have happened on accident.
To simply say it isnt, proves nothing. Take a gander in an encyclopedia and look it up. See how much is involved in the simplest unit of live in existence, and which is universally accepted as the simplest form of life that can exist in our system of biological life.
To believe those chemicals could have floated together on their own and form a "thinking" nucleus (it directs the activity of the cell), golgi matter, a membrane that knows what to let in and what is destructive to the cell, DNA, it has cytoplasm, ribosones, mitochondria and more. Each of these items cannot live on their own, so they could not have been floating around waiting to hook up with each other. The chemicals or molecues involved would have ALL had to float together at the exact same precise time and in the exact same precise location to each and individually form them. Chemicals or molecues would have had to float together to form the golgi matter, the membrane, DNA, mitochondria, etc. etc.To believe this requires more faith than to believe in a God.
It would be akin to throwing the parts of a house into a lake and expecting them to, given enough time, float together and make a house. Although you cant prove it cant happen, anyone with any common sense knows it cant. Anyone who would honestly and seriously think or claim it could happen is simply delusional and agenda driven.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You added a qualifier to the non-replicating group that ensured their winning the battle. You added this qualifier arbitrarily. You've made an argument that you believe is infallible, but it only appears to be based on your arbitrary qualifiers. If you're still confused, substitute your non-replicating group of all males with a non-replicating group of all females and rerun your scenario. Did the lightbulb turn on yet?

The non replicating group would never be all females. The dominat gender is the male and would surely, based on the survival of the fittest, would be present instead of the woman. ANother reason the non replicating group would have to be male, or genderless, is because the characteristics which make the females weaker, and hence would lose in a battle to men, are characteristics that exist solely to produce a child. There would be no reason for those characteristics to exist in a member of the non replicating group.

The basic concept is that if a member of a species had the characteristics to reproduce, then that member would be the weakest in the group and be unable to survive according to the survival of the fittest laws of evolution. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about reproducing that encourages the survival of that individual. NOTHING. It only makes that individual weaker, AS AN INDIVIDUAL.
FACT of the matter is, for a living organism to have the ability to reproduce, it requires that some planning by a creative intelligent being was involved. The DNA present in the single cell has absolutely no function other than to serve as information for the reproduction of the cell. But why would that cell even have DNA if it didnt know it was going to reproduce? Since it is not intelligent enough on its own to know it was going to reproduce, then the only answer is that an outside intelligent force must have put it there while planning for the future.
There is absolutely no reason, nor any way, that the DNA would be produced accidentally at the same time the primordial soup bowl produced the living cell. And simply put, if the original first ever living cell wasnt capable of reproducing, then it would have died and the end of the beginning of life would have been snuffed out.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Your logic is not absolute. A lack of proof alone is not sufficient in proving that you have no proof. Ever.

It is if you have a situation where we know for a fact that the person wants to provide proof. For example, if the IRS wants to charge you $1000 and you dont want to pay it, and you need proof of, lets say a purchase, to eliminate the $1000 charge, then by providing no proof, it has been proven the person has no proof.