Question for RJHinds and other Creationists that deny evidence

Originally posted by RJHinds
Both parts because you make false ssumptions.

"You are bonkers"is a counter to your false assumptions.

They were not “assumptions” but “deductions” with premise and conclusions stated.
Me being "bonkers", if true, does not change that fact.

Originally posted by humy
They were not “assumptions” but “deductions” with premise and conclusions stated.
Me being "bonkers", if true, does not change that fact.

Okay, have it your way, they were "false deductions."

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay, have it your way, they were "false deductions."

Tell us, oh master, what makes them false?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Tell us, oh master, what makes them false?

They are based on wrong assumptions.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/dgue/basic-assumptions-of-evolution

http://www.evolutionisdead.com/assume.php

Originally posted by RJHinds
They are based on wrong assumptions.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/dgue/basic-assumptions-of-evolution

http://www.evolutionisdead.com/assume.php

firstly, this would be changing the topic but these links simply lists a load of lies and misinformation just like most of the links you give and shows NO evidence.

Secondly, and lets get back to the topic here:
My deductions were:

Your “yes” answer shows that the ONLY real reason why you reject the said evidence as valid/real evidence is what the Bible says and NOT because of logic/reason and that would also mean the whole premise that the said evidence is not valid/real rests on the assumption that the Bible always tells the truth.

But that assumption that the Bible always tells the truth cannot be falsified because, if that assumption is false, you still could always just simply dismiss any evidence that it is false by saying that said evidence is not valid/real evidence because the Bible always tells the truth!

and now you clearly imply those above deductions are false because they are based on false assumptions about evolution?
Not only does those above deductions not mention the word “evolution” nor any evidence for, specifically, evolution, but they don't explicitly/implicitly use the assumptions of evolution as their premises.
So you still haven't stated exactly which assumptions my above deductions are based on that are false. So which assumptions are they?

Originally posted by humy
firstly, this would be changing the topic but these links simply lists a load of lies and misinformation just like most of the links you give and shows NO evidence.

Secondly, and lets get back to the topic here:
My deductions were:
[quote] Your “yes” answer shows that the ONLY real reason why you reject the said evidence as valid/real evidence is what the ...[text shortened]... ch assumptions my above deductions are based on that are false. So which assumptions are they?

The second link shows the difference in the assumptions.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The second link shows the difference in the assumptions.

The second link is also wrong and says misinformation and lies about evolution that, even if true, would be totally irrelevant to my deductions that do not even mention the word “evolution” nor any evidence for, specifically, evolution, and they don't explicitly/implicitly use the assumptions of evolution as their premises.

Reminder of my deductions:

Your “yes” answer shows that the ONLY real reason why you reject the said evidence as valid/real evidence is what the Bible says and NOT because of logic/reason and that would also mean the whole premise that the said evidence is not valid/real rests on the assumption that the Bible always tells the truth.

But that assumption that the Bible always tells the truth cannot be falsified because, if that assumption is false, you still could always just simply dismiss any evidence that it is false by saying that said evidence is not valid/real evidence because the Bible always tells the truth!

-well, no mention of evolution there!

So you still haven't stated exactly which assumptions my above deductions are based on that are false. So which assumptions are they?

Originally posted by humy
The second link is also wrong and says misinformation and lies about evolution that, even if true, would be totally irrelevant to my deductions that do not even mention the word “evolution” nor any evidence for, specifically, evolution, and they don't explicitly/implicitly use the assumptions of evolution as their premises.

Reminder of my deductions:
[quot ...[text shortened]... ch assumptions my above deductions are based on that are false. So which assumptions are they?

If the evidence is not concerning evolution, then what is this evidence you are talking about?

Originally posted by RJHinds
If the evidence is not concerning evolution, then what is this evidence you are talking about?

Now you are playing dumb again: I was talking about my DEDUCTIONS.
Reminder of my deductions:

Your “yes” answer shows that the ONLY real reason why you reject the said evidence as valid/real evidence is what the Bible says and NOT because of logic/reason and that would also mean the whole premise that the said evidence is not valid/real rests on the assumption that the Bible always tells the truth.

But that assumption that the Bible always tells the truth cannot be falsified because, if that assumption is false, you still could always just simply dismiss any evidence that it is false by saying that said evidence is not valid/real evidence because the Bible always tells the truth!

-well, no mention of evolution there!

Originally posted by humy
Now you are playing dumb again: I was talking about my DEDUCTIONS.
Reminder of my deductions:

Your “yes” answer shows that the ONLY real reason why you reject the said evidence as valid/real evidence is what the Bible says and NOT because of logic/reason and that would also mean the whole premise that the said evidence is not valid/real rests on ...[text shortened]... because the Bible always tells the truth!

-well, no mention of evolution there!

Recall the logical fallacy of begging the question. The core of evolution is based upon this fallacy. Many of the pillars supporting the theory of evolution are based on assumptions. Those assumptions are then used to expand and prove other aspects of evolution. Again, this is simply begging the question.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Recall the logical fallacy of begging the question. The core of evolution is based upon this fallacy. Many of the pillars supporting the theory of evolution are based on assumptions. Those assumptions are then used to expand and prove other aspects of evolution. Again, this is simply begging the question.

Just what question is is begging?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Recall the logical fallacy of begging the question. The core of evolution is based upon this fallacy. Many of the pillars supporting the theory of evolution are based on assumptions. Those assumptions are then used to expand and prove other aspects of evolution. Again, this is simply begging the question.

Many of the pillars supporting the theory of evolution are based on assumptions. Those assumptions are then used to expand and prove other aspects of evolution.

that is true for ALL rationally obtained scientific theories.

But if those “assumptions” for a theory are qualified ones to the extent that they should be considered to be facts and if the theory makes predictions of what could be observed that would disprove the theory if observed to be false ( i.e. it is falsifiable ) and those predictions are observed to be true ( i.e. there is conformation for the theory ) and there is no credible alternative explanation for those observations with many different different predictions by the theory being shown to consistently to be observed to be true and not one being show to be false ( i.e. the evidence for the theory is overwhelming ) then that is considered to be valid scientific proof of the theory.

Evolution has all those above properties thus it is proven.

Originally posted by humy

Many of the pillars supporting the theory of evolution are based on assumptions. Those assumptions are then used to expand and prove other aspects of evolution.

that is true for ALL rationally obtained scientific theories.

But if those “assumptions” for a theory are qualified ones to the extent that they should be considered to be facts an ...[text shortened]... d scientific proof of the theory.

Evolution has all those above properties thus it is proven.

Evolution has been disproved by the information system stored in the DNA. That language code proves the existence of an intelligence to assign meaning to it. God said let a three letter sequence equal something and another three letter sequence equal something else and so on. Crick and Watson earned a Nobel Prize for discovering what the words of the genetic code meant. Who else is said to have spoken things into existence, other than the God of the Holy Bible?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution has been disproved by the information system stored in the DNA. That language code proves the existence of an intelligence to assign meaning to it. God said let a three letter sequence equal something and another three letter sequence equal something else and so on. Crick and Watson earned a Nobel Prize for discovering what the words of the gen ...[text shortened]... t. Who else is said to have spoken things into existence, other than the God of the Holy Bible?

You do talk a load of crap.

God said let a three letter sequence equal something and another three letter sequence equal something else and so on.

really? Show me the Bible scripture that says 'God' said a three letter sequences of DNA equals something....

Originally posted by humy
You do talk a load of crap.

God said let a three letter sequence equal something and another three letter sequence equal something else and so on.

really? Show me the Bible scripture that says 'God' said a three letter sequences of DNA equals something....

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
(Genesis 1:26)

Here we see an intelligent contrivance to produce man - "Let Us"
According to the Information Scientists, intelligent contrivance is a requirement to produce information because there must be meaning assigned to the information.

Information is stored in the DNA molecule in the form of a specific computer-like language code. In all of God's creations He uses a language to instruct the action necessary to produce His design - "God said"

Although God did not tell us exactly what the specifics of this agreed upon language was, we have two Nobel Prize winners who have decoded the language and say that it consists of a three letter sequence that equals something and another three letter sequence equals something else and so on. They even know what the "something' is for the different three letter combinations. They do not know all the details as yet, but it should be obvious to any thinking person that this language code is what God decided to use in the Creation of the living cell to create man. A cell will die with this information.