• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

So has Raddy-boy presented what his ID Hypothesis and the evidence to support these claim is yet or is he just whining and attempting to not answer these questions?
 
Radrook said:
Your premise is defective. The arguments presented are either convincing or unconvincing.
Are either cogent or fallacious. The manner of transmission of these arguments be it via written word, tv, telephone, telegraph, email, snail-mail, fax or you tube is completely irrelevant. Neither does the person appearing on the youtube become less of a scientist just because he uses the youtube to get his point across.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they become less of a scientist, but I do say that any science needs to have references and experimental proof to back it up. ID has neither, nor do youtube videos. Or do you also believe the video's on the same medium from scientists in other fields that prove Alien life, Perpetuum mobile machines, Global conspiracies, Lizards ruling the earth and similar concepts?


Radrook said:
Didn't say they al were. Sorry I gave the impression. However, please note that a believer in God is a believer in an ID. They are one and the same.
Click to expand...

Actually not necessarily. Most of them I know go for the deistic idea that God somehow created the universe, then let it run until evolution produced an intelligent lifeform and then skip straight to Christ.


Radrook said:
all good and well. However,m you are missing te point. The point is that some truths need no extensive experimentation or documentation, Such truths are arrived at with pure logic.
Click to expand...

Such thruths are Philosophy, not Science. For instance, there is no scientific proof that there is justice or mercy or right or wrong yet we humans work that way (although of course no two people tend to fully agree on any of these). But to say that experimental proof and theory is not needed to disprove the theory of evolution is the same as claiming that the earth is flat.



Radrook said:
Well, as you know that point is debatable and is debated often between evolutionists and creationists. I personally don't put my trust in theories that say one thing one moment and then turn around and come u with another idea the next. It weakens credibility and smacks of quackery.

When I was a kid I was taught Neanderthals were veritably apelike and wee not part of the human raced. I accepted that as fact and would have argued my head off with anyone who contradicted it. This was later buttressed by a DNA study which conclusively proved that Human DNA and Neanderthal DNA are different abd that no interbreeding could take place. Then Suddenly we have the neanderthals now with human appearance, the apelike hunch is gone, humans have interbred, and they too are homo sapiens Neanderthals. So much foir my certainty. This fiasco is repeated over and over ad nauseum. Others want to go along with this little game? Ok by me. But I prefer not to.
Click to expand...

When I was a kid I was taught that the earth was made in 6 days and a magic man appeared that could turn water into wine and walk on water. Then when I got older I learned that the earth was created from the flesh of a dead giant and dreamed by a raven and that there were half-gods that were immortal except for a spot in their heel.
This is what I never understand. You claim to dislike the scientific explanations because science is self correcting and actually fixes mistakes as they come to light, but you have absolute 100% faith in something as utterly vague as the bible? Not only is that but one of many irreconcilable faiths of man, but even those claiming to follow the bible are incapable of finding any coherent way of doing so and use the same book to claim everyone but them is wrong.

I have read the bible. And I found it utterly unconvincing and self contradictory, not to mention that I found the god of the old testament an insufferable sadist. If I had to choose a religion to follow I'd go with the greek/roman pantheon. They may be petty, but at least knew how to have fun.

Besides, I assume you DO use science that changes its mind without considering it quackery. Medicine has changed its mind considerably over the last 100 years, never mind the period before that. What would you rather use, the pre- or post-science Medicine?
Aviation science has changed its mind a lot in the 100 years it exists. Which do you prefer to fly. A wright brothers or the Airbus 330?
Physics has altered its theories as radically as anything shown in biology/genetics, and because of that we now have personal computers, internet, television, GPS and microwave ovens.
If someone were to say on youtube that 50 years ago they claimed this was impossible, but now it is, so they must be wrong, would you consider this a truth that needs no proof? And if not, then why is the theory of evolution so different from these other branches of science?


Radrook said:
Was unaware of that. But it';s not the videos as medium of communication per se but the arguments presented that are important.
Click to expand...

As I said, I fully agree with the already posted comments about why the arguments presented in said video's are false.
 
kerikiwi said:
Radrook said:
I personally don't put my trust in theories that say one thing one moment and then turn around and come u with another idea the next.
Click to expand...
Can you explain just how Darwin's theory has 'turned around'?
Click to expand...
As with heliocentrists accepting what their untrained eyes told them, it is fitting that cDesign Proponentsists and other creatards think believe that Darwin's theory has 'turned around'; it has mercilessly and relentlessly assaulted their pathetic house of cards from every possible angle
 
Radrook said:
Well, as you know that point is debatable and is debated often between evolutionists and creationists. I personally don't put my trust in theories that say one thing one moment and then turn around and come u with another idea the next. It weakens credibility and smacks of quackery.

When I was a kid I was taught Neanderthals were veritably apelike and wee not part of the human raced. I accepted that as fact and would have argued my head off with anyone who contradicted it. This was later buttressed by a DNA study which conclusively proved that Human DNA and Neanderthal DNA are different abd that no interbreeding could take place. Then Suddenly we have the neanderthals now with human appearance, the apelike hunch is gone, humans have interbred, and they too are homo sapiens Neanderthals. So much foir my certainty. This fiasco is repeated over and over ad nauseum. Others want to go along with this little game? Ok by me. But I prefer not to.
Click to expand...

It is this ability of science to admit when it got something wrong which makes it infinitely more reliable than, for example, a book. I would put my trust in someone who admits when they made a mistake, than one who refuses to admit anything, even if they are demonstrably wrong.
 
Radrook said:
Well, I didn't' expect you to be convinced and neither was I trying to convince you. I was asked the basis for my belief in an Id and felt that the videos provide the answerr.
You disagree with their logic? That's OK. It's your prerogative.
Click to expand...

When you are pointed out that one of the basis for belief *YOU* use is an obvious lie, that should bring you to maybe , I don't know, discard that lie. If you don't, and still decide to use it as basis for your belief, that tell everybody something about you, you realize that ?
 
Toke said:
Radrook does not trust people who change their mind whenever they get new data. :D
Click to expand...

Which means he should not trust us if we decide he's right!

Except he'll weasel out of that one by claiming we knew everything all along and it was just our "hearts" keeping us from whatever God he believes in but is too scared to define.
 
Ysidro said:
Which means he should not trust us if we decide he's right!

Except he'll weasel out of that one by claiming we knew everything all along and it was just our "hearts" keeping us from whatever God he believes in but is too scared to define.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is likely an escape clause of some sort in case something happen to agree with him. :D
 
edge said:
{Bolding mine}
Wow you finally said something that makes sense, now think why is that?
Your so-called Atheism is just that? Because it’s just a matter of time, if you think evolution is proof of there being no so-called God your delusional.
Click to expand...

Everything is evidence that there is no god. Claims to the contrary are no longer tenable. If you made any kind of effort to educate yourself, you'd know this by now.

Again, why are you on a skeptics' forum ? If you're not willing to learn, why bother at all ? Go to some theist forum and you'll find people who think like you.
 
Radrook said:
Evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. There are people who reconcile the twain. However, from a strictly literal biblical view the two are incompatible.
Click to expand...

I can agree to that.

But SCIENCE and belief in God are mutually exclusive, because the latter ignores scientific processes and evidence.
 
Radrook said:
So much foir my certainty. This fiasco is repeated over and over ad nauseum. Others want to go along with this little game? Ok by me. But I prefer not to.
Click to expand...
So you would rather stick to something that is perpetually wrong than something that is self-correcting?
 
A philosophical question if you'd be so kind Radbrook.

Are you opposed to re-opening trials if new information comes to light that would show that someone is mistakenly in jail?
Or is that somehow different?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom