Search results

Obviously. Of course, there is no assumption in evolution theory that a new species could be created in one generation. You are thinking of something that is directly converse to the assumptions of evolution theory. I flip a quarter twice and both times do not result in "heads." Using...

Every mutation is an "error." Evolution is the advancement of errors that prove to enhance the success of an organism within a population. If there is an inherent benefit because of an error, the liklihood of mating increases. Following, then, the liklihood of the error spreading through a...

Anyone ever read "Cat's Cradle"? In it he discusses a concept called Ice-nine in which a scientist manipulates a water molecule structure which changes the way environmental factors influence this specific type of water (the melting/boiling points are altered) because of the new way that these...

I'm not sure what you mean by "ability to form code." We think of code as needing translation, but here we actually are using it to mean manifestation; a physical structure governs the order in a process.

Gotta stop you right there. Before we can even begin to entertain to other claims that follow this assumption, you need to give a valid argument that this is at all relevant to the genetic code. Here's a timesaver: It's not, so the claims that follow from this assumption can all be...

Acceptance of the big bang is not a corruption of the word of God. Of course, that's the real purpose of this thread. I believe that the OP doesn't have an issue with the BB, specifically, but more generally, would reject ANY model of the universe that doesn't hypothesize a 6,000 year creation...

:amen

You haven't even defined "mainstream." You are strawmanning by claiming that "mainstream" is something I believe in. I don't, because I don't even know what you mean by the word. I'm also not going to take on the burden of proof. This is your thread. You claimed that you could disprove the big...

More often it comes down to starting 50 fires in 5 minutes. The readymade, copy/paste arguments are the worst and the problem with them gets worse once the quote button comes into play. It is best not to address the claims made specifically, but to spot the inherent fallacies. That avoids the...

Really this comes down to an attack on an invisible bogeyman..."them." Whomever "they" are, whether you want to call "them" the "mainstream" or something else, is an unidentified party that you are making invalid and fabricated claims against and that you haven't provided one shred of...

Off topic. Strawman Ad Hom Poisoning the Well

Off topic

Contextomy. Irrelevant conclusion Strawman Do you even understand that you are not addressing the BB theory whatsoever?

Still ad homming and strawmanning. I should remind you, yet again, the topic is "No Big Bang." Do you have anything to say on THAT subject?

Sweeping generalization Strawman ad hom When are you going to actually talk about the big bang?

Strawman Sweeping generalization

argumentum ad auctoritatem

Argument from incredulity

Ignoratio elenchi

Gish gallop sums it up perfectly. But if you want me to name the specific fallacies within the scope of the all-encompassing fallacy you are comitting, I can.