Skepticism and Evolution

[Complexity]

What a lousy excuse for a thread, especially the OP.

 

[kmortis]

Lol, pet theory.
I'm, sure if I had a degree in physics, I would get irritated when people with only a layman's knowledge in the area criticized my 'pet theory' of gravity for purely philosophical reasons.

Yeah, I think that's a well-known phenomenon.

Expect the "Gish gallop" any time now. Clop-clop... clop-clop... clop-clop...

HOLY CRAP! Those are Gish Cylsdales!

"No, those have always been whales! You must show how a banana evolved into a whale before I will believe!"

In other words:" Na Na Na... I can't hear you!"

BANANA!​

Don't say "bunderscoreda" around here. It's the Atheists' Nightmare, remember!

 

[plumjam]

This is plumjams main get-out. Retreat into time-irrefutability-irrefutability. Since evolution takes a long time to happen, all he has to do is mention this fact and ::::: POOF ::::: he has won the argument.

Imagine if we were talking about plate tectonics.

It's also the same "get-out" that geologists use when describing plate tectonics. However, we can test it based upon features we can measure in our time scale.

I've no idea whether plate tectonics is a very accurate theory or not. Perhaps in 20 years someone will come along with a radically different theory that fits the data a lot better.


On the face of it, though, it seems enormously more reasonable than the TOE. This is because plate tectonics describes a mindless physical process producing unremarkable rock formations which are devoid of specified complexity / apparent design. However, if someone were to take me to Mount Rushmore, point to the faces and argue with a straight face that these formations were produced by mindless physical processes such as plate tectonics + erosion then I'd be justified in concluding that this person was pretty irrational.

It's worth noting that I couldn't really prove him wrong. Even if I showed him historical data about the creation of the faces he could always argue that it's a hoax; a myth.
Also, it is not impossible that plate tectonics plus erosion could (given enough time ) 'create' an accurate copy of Mount Rushmore somewhere else in the world. But to believe in that tiny possibility over the possibility of intelligent design, in my opinion, is by far the less rational choice to take.

People here are believing that the many-orders-of-magnitude-more-complex than Mount Rushmore life forms on Earth were first brought into existence and then enormously but blindly developed by mindless physical forces.
Sorry, but it's crazy.

Here's a quote from Malcolm Muggeridge which pretty much sums up my view on the matter:

""I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent that it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

 

[D'rok]

On the face of it, though, it seems enormously more reasonable than the TOE. This is because plate tectonics describes a mindless physical process producing unremarkable rock formations which are devoid of specified complexity / apparent design. However, if someone were to take me to Mount Rushmore, point to the faces and argue with a straight face that these formations were produced by mindless physical processes such as plate tectonics + erosion then I'd be justified in concluding that this person was pretty irrational.

I wonder if that is an accurate analogy for evolution and thus a valid criticism of it?

Actually, I don't wonder.

All hail the great prophet, MattusMaximus!!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3863758#post3863758

 

[Terry]

Really? Apart from variations within limits where and when has evolution been observed?

and what are these limits, pray tell?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Here's a quote from Malcolm Muggeridge which pretty much sums up my view on the matter:

Not that he'd have any sort of agenda against evolution now, would he?

 

[joobz]

I've no idea whether plate tectonics is a very accurate theory or not. Perhaps in 20 years someone will come along with a radically different theory that fits the data a lot better.

Possibly. Same thing for evolution. But it is what best fits the data right now. If new data comes along that requires a readdressing, I can't wait to see it. It will mean I learn something new.

On the face of it, though, it seems enormously more reasonable than the TOE. This is because plate tectonics describes a mindless physical process producing unremarkable rock formations which are devoid of specified complexity / apparent design.

You've never looked at a geod? Stalagtite/stalagmite formation? MOuntain ranges, Volcano formations? You claim unremarkable rocks, I see well ordered predictable structures emerging from fundemental physical principles.

However, if someone were to take me to Mount Rushmore, point to the faces and argue with a straight face that these formations were produced by mindless physical processes such as plate tectonics + erosion then I'd be justified in concluding that this person was pretty irrational.

funny thing is that is exactly how the old man in the mountain came about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_of_the_Mountain

It's worth noting that I couldn't really prove him wrong. Even if I showed him historical data about the creation of the faces he could always argue that it's a hoax; a myth.

Actually, you could. You could point to tell tale signs of worked rock. We have evidence of people working stone, so we know what that looks like. It's a rather easy thing to prove.

Also, it is not impossible that plate tectonics plus erosion could (given enough time ) 'create' an accurate copy of Mount Rushmore somewhere else in the world. But to believe in that tiny possibility over the possibility of intelligent design, in my opinion, is by far the less rational choice to take.

Of course there is absolutely no eveolutionary analog of this challenge, but rather a fanciful game of yours.

People here are believing that the many-orders-of-magnitude-more-complex than Mount Rushmore life forms on Earth were first brought into existence and then enormously but blindly developed by mindless physical forces.
Sorry, but it's crazy.

It is crazy. But it's what the evidence shows. Similarly, Shroedinger's cat shows how crazy quantum theory is, yet it is what the evidence shows. Crazy isn't a good enough argument against a theory. It takes....evidence.
please, please please please please please please, present some evidence that disproves the theory and not your simple incredulity.

Here's a quote from Malcolm Muggeridge which pretty much sums up my view on the matter:

""I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent that it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

Here's a quote from Bobby McButtcrack which sums up my view on the matter:

"Quoting people who are not experts on the topic at hand is as irrelevant as quoting people like me, Bobby McButtcrack."

 

[kerikiwi]

Plumjam
Have you read The Blind Watchmaker?
It explains in a very easy to grasp fashion how mindless physical forces fashion complex organisms.

You and Malcolm Muggeridge seem to be on a par with each other: impressively ignorant of that which you think yourself informed.

 

[Wowbagger]

Plumjam, and others: You might be interested in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118598

There, we can continue to discuss macro-evolution more constructively.

 

[truethat]

I can't help but think he's attempting to illict a response to "prove" a point in his religion thread.

In any case, without any further information, Saying "i'm skeptical of evolution." is like saying "I'm skeptical of dave."

really? dave who?
What did dave do?
Is Dave here?

No kidding. Not to mention that I SAID that I was going to do it. As you can see it jumped from being rational to irrational in no time flat.

I'm not a Creationist, I just mentioned something GENERAL, and still I got backlash.

So I guess I rest my case.

BTW for those of you who didn't actually catch on, this thread is an experiment.

And also more "assumptions" I'm a chick. Not a HE.

 

[quixotecoyote]

BTW for those of you who didn't actually catch on, this thread is an experiment.

Yeah, we've heard that one before.

 

[quixotecoyote]

It is crazy. But it's what the evidence shows. Similarly, Shroedinger's cat shows how crazy quantum theory is, yet it is what the evidence shows.

Not the cat. The cat is an example of how quantum theory DOESN'T work at macroscopic levels. Using it as an an example of quantum theory working is backwards.

 

[joobz]

No kidding. Not to mention that I SAID that I was going to do it. As you can see it jumped from being rational to irrational in no time flat.

I missed where you said that. My apologies for that.

You started a thread in a skeptical site making a rather broad unsubstantiated claim. That same response would occur if you had said, "I've read up on electricity, and I'm skeptical of it."
"I've read up on DNA, and I'm skeptical of it."
"I've read up on spaceflight, and I'm skeptical of it."

I'm not a Creationist, I just mentioned something GENERAL, and still I got backlash.

Exactly. Because you mentioned something general. Skeptics like to discuss the details. Lobbing a rather troll-like grenade is bound to ellicit some reactions.

So I guess I rest my case.

BTW for those of you who didn't actually catch on, this thread is an experiment.

Actually, you don't rest your case. What you proved was troll threads attract a lot of attention and Plumjam's refutable arguments add fuel to the fire.

And also more "assumptions" I'm a chick. Not a HE.

Michael Douglass is one ugly chick.

 

[joobz]

Not the cat. The cat is an example of how quantum theory DOESN'T work at macroscopic levels. Using it as an an example of quantum theory working is backwards.

I didn't mean to imply that it was evidence of quatum theory, but rather it was an exmaple of the strangeness (craziness) of the quantum world.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Here's a quote from Malcolm Muggeridge which pretty much sums up my view on the matter:

""I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent that it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

Do you suppose he could have answered any of the questions that you are currently dodging? I doubt it. I doubt he knew any more about the actual mechanisms of evolution than you do, which makes your matching opinions equally valid.

 

[MattusMaximus]

More of the "Gish-gallop"... clop-clop... clop-clop...

This is the evolutionist's main get-out. Retreat into time-irrefutability.. which makes most aspects of the theory untestable, and therefore non-scientific (as the word 'scientific' is commonly used).
Faith fueled by imagination.

This claim coming from an advocate of ID-creationism who has never once provided a testable claim of their views

Of course evolution is testable. At the following link are numerous pages of testable hypotheses for evolution and the evidence from those tests in support of evolution...

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

This information has, many many times, been pointed out to Plumjam before. And, true to his tactics, he simply ignores the evidence and "Gish-gallops" along... clop-clop... clop-clop...

Lurkers should note that he's doing a damned good job of making numerous claims, ignoring criticism of his claims and demands for evidence, while moving on to make new claims. In addition, you should note that many of us have seen him make all these claims before (none are new), we've refuted every one of them, yet - straight out of the creationist playbook - Plumjam sticks to the script and brings them up again and again when new people are in the conversation.

Did I mention something earlier about dishonesty?

Hey Plumjam! Got that evidence for the discrimination in academia against theists ("the purge") by the atheistic "Darwinist dogmatists" yet? Remember, naming just one single case will do.

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

 

[MattusMaximus]

No kidding. Not to mention that I SAID that I was going to do it. As you can see it jumped from being rational to irrational in no time flat.

Hi truethat, I don't think I've addressed you directly, so let me do so now.

I'm not a Creationist, I just mentioned something GENERAL, and still I got backlash.

If you can provide a good example of something you're skeptical about concerning evolutionary science, that would go a long way towards furthering the discussion. As to the OP, if you're curious about learning more on evolution, here are some good links to get started...

Talk Origins: FAQ

Understanding Evolution

Take some time to read up on the science, and if you still have legitimate questions that need addressing, then by all means ask them. I'm a professional educator by trade, so I'm used to getting questions from people who are legitimately confused on such issues.

So I guess I rest my case.

BTW for those of you who didn't actually catch on, this thread is an experiment.

Really? In what way? Inquiring minds want to know.

And also more "assumptions" I'm a chick. Not a HE.

Ah. Thanks for the clarity - I, erroneously, assumed from your avatar that you were male.

 

[truethat]

I missed where you said that. My apologies for that.

You started a thread in a skeptical site making a rather broad unsubstantiated claim. That same response would occur if you had said, "I've read up on electricity, and I'm skeptical of it."
"I've read up on DNA, and I'm skeptical of it."
"I've read up on spaceflight, and I'm skeptical of it."
Exactly. Because you mentioned something general. Skeptics like to discuss the details. Lobbing a rather troll-like grenade is bound to ellicit some reactions.



Actually, you don't rest your case. What you proved was troll threads attract a lot of attention and Plumjam's refutable arguments add fuel to the fire.

Michael Douglass is one ugly chick.

This wasn't a troll thread. And I was accused of being a creationist simply for expressing skepticism about something general about Evolution.

If I posted I was skeptical about electricity I doubt I'd be called a creationist.

The Creationist lable is attached to anyone questioning Evolution.

I'm not posting any more here. I've proven my point though you wish to claim otherwise.

 

[Jimbo07]

The Creationist lable is attached to anyone questioning Evolution.

I'm not posting any more here. I've proven my point though you wish to claim otherwise.

Point taken. Now, please demonstrate that you are anything other than a creationist by questioning specific points about evolution.

You can't expect to be taken seriously by making statements to the effect of:

I'm not a creationist, but I'm skeptical of evolution in general, nyah, nyah, nyah!

This wasn't a troll thread.

Prove it. What parts of evolution, specifically, are you skeptical of?

And I was accused of being a creationist simply for expressing skepticism about something general about Evolution.

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck... however you're being given an opportunity by multiple posters to prove that you aren't. What are you skeptical of, and from sheer curiosity, why?

 

[NoisyAstronomer]

Me: Continents take millions of years to move that far.
PJ: Ah, the time-irrefutability argument.
ME: /facepalm

Hehe. If it helps any (not that such folks may care about evidence) there has been measured plate movement, with techniques like Very Long Baseline Interferometry.

But I guess that's micro-tectonics and not macro-tectonics.

For any lurkers who don't know any better, you should be informed that Plumjam is a creationist shill. Follow this thread for a time (if he continues to post, that is) and we shall point out the most common creationist arguments that he makes and how to refute them. It will become readily apparent that his methods of argumentation are quite dishonest.

I'm a n00b here so thanks for the heads up! Although I've seen and participated in my share of evolution arguments already. *sigh*

Lol, pet theory.
I'm, sure if I had a degree in physics, I would get irritated when people with only a layman's knowledge in the area criticized my 'pet theory' of gravity for purely philosophical reasons.

But... but... Intelligent Falling!