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

[Radrook]

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 are misunderstanding me. I am not against finding new evidence and readjusting views. I am against dogmatically proclaiming fickle theories as undeniable, indisputable truths broaching no alternate explanations..

 

[zooterkin]

You are misunderstanding me. I am not against finding new evidence and readjusting views. I am against dogmatically proclaiming fickle theories as undeniable, indisputable truths broaching no alternate explanations..

Good job that's not how science works, then.

 

[Taffer]

1 through 4 are for you the 4 others are what else I think.

Ok, but I still do not understand the answers of those answers (2 onwards). Can you please rephrase or explain your answers for me?

That's a tough one.
First off, from what I have seen you can't take reading just one of my incidents that are basically an extraordinary story, so you would call it an anecdote especially if I post a link with 50 years of extraordinary things I have encountered and witnessed.

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it can be, and often is, wrong and unsupported.

No one in here has asked me how it’s going with the movies I was going to post for evidence to support my view on the mind and that we may be seeing as an evolution of it.

I really don’t think you want to know the truth.
You would just pass it off as a remark to my sanity and dismiss it all.

On the contrary edge, all I want to know is the truth. So please, do not worry when you explain yourself. If I find your explanation convincing, I will be honest and tell you so. I am not here to blindly deny everything you say.

What I know about truth you would not accept.

Please, give me some examples. I will be honest and tell you that if I accept or not your truth, it will be on intellectual grounds and not emotional grounds, nor from pure stubbornness.

Heck in my other thread some of you can’t even understand the correct translation of Jesus when he spoke about the sword that he brings.

I can't comment about this, as I have not read the entire bible.

From what I seen in this world is that… what Jesus tells us about it is correct.
Not so much in a scientific way but in the spiritual sense.
Even today there is a misunderstanding about what we see that manifests it’s self in our world on many levels.
I’ll give you a hint my story is called Spiritual world of the Fallen
I am still working on it and there’s a point where I go into science fiction and speculation.
It would make for a good movie maybe.

Ok. I think you are basically saying that you find the word of Jesus to be spiritually true and correct, right? In which case, I have another question: Why do you think all the other people in the world who are just as convinced that their own religion is absolutely, completely, true on a spiritual level are wrong?

 

[paximperium]

You are misunderstanding me. I am not against finding new evidence and readjusting views. I am against dogmatically proclaiming fickle theories as undeniable, indisputable truths broaching no alternate explanations..

You must be talking about Intelligent Design since the theory of evolution does not meet the criteria of your claim.

So can you describe the ID Hypothesis and the evidence to support this claim yet or are you still attempting to ignore how your videos are complete and utter garbage?

 

[edge]

Now I'm confused by your conflicting answers. You say you believe in ID but you believe that it should be taught as a philosophy, not as science?

I guess in this way you could have all the aspects that are separate come together for discussions, The sciences that are involved with evolution Paleontology are the same ones that are used for lets say biblical archeology.
The evidence can only go so far back as proof in biblical archeology to Solomon and David at least so far.
Then there’s a big gap between the two.
Fossils go back to the beginning.

I find it all fasinating.

 

[Taffer]

You are misunderstanding me. I am not against finding new evidence and readjusting views. I am against dogmatically proclaiming fickle theories as undeniable, indisputable truths broaching no alternate explanations..

No good scientist should claim this about any theory, especially not one such as the modern synthesis of evolution.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

You are misunderstanding me. I am not against finding new evidence and readjusting views. I am against dogmatically proclaiming fickle theories as undeniable, indisputable truths broaching no alternate explanations..

Then why do you support ID?
It has no evidence, no predictive possibilities and its proponents dogmatically reject to even consider they are wrong. In fact, the entire theory didnt even exist until creationism was kicked out of the US curriculum. Nor can its proponents even forumlate a coherent theory as it runs the range from "Our DNA is fixed and perfect" to "the Intelligence made the first lifeform 3 billion years ago and then left it alone"
If you find the minor discrepancies in the current TOE a flaw, then ID should be even more disagreeable to you.

 

[Taffer]

I find it all fasinating.

At least, my friend, this we can agree on.

 

[Radrook]

I respect your position on this, but I personally think you are coming at the problem from the wrong frame of mind. I do not consider changing of scientific theory a 'ride on the roller coaster'. Instead of thinking "oh, they've changed their minds again", I think "well, that's interesting, now we know more then we did before, I'm glad we can update our thinking to match reality more closely". Or something along those lines.

The point I'm trying to make is that I do not equate constantly changing one's mind (something which can be annoying in a person) with changing and advancing scientific theory (something which only leads to better understanding). At this moment, the modern synthesis is the best theory to explain the wide variation of life we see around us. Does this mean I think it is true to a absolutely certain degree? No, but then I consider nothing every absolutely certain (yes, including this statement, but that's for another thread). If tomorrow new evidence comes to light that, in fact, there are magical pixies in our cells which run on little treadmills to make us work, and this evidence withstood scrutiny and testing, then any resulting theory which explains this fact in a parsimonious way will be happily accepted by me and, I would hope, other scientists. My certainty in anything, including theories, is provisional and only as solid as the evidence which supports it.

I agree with you . New evidence should be received as new evidence. But that requires a constant reorganization of our world view. Since that's the case, then our present world view should be considered provisional and NOT an unassailable permanent one.

You See, what I'm arguing against is dogmatism. Dogmatism is not only illogical due to it's inflexible refusal to admit the possibility of any alternate explanations, but it is unscientific as well. It requires an hermetically sealed intellect.


Let me give an example in order to avoid further misunderstanding of where i stand:

Let's say that I put forth the oscillating theory of the universe as absolute truth. Argue that the other possibilities are drivel, and will forever be drivel. When presented with other possibilities or theories I proclaim them spurious and inapplicable.When confronted with testimony or opinions of qualified scientists who hold an opposite view I proclaim them to be ignorant. When presented with logical reasons why I should be more reasonable I claim that logic is irrelevant.

That's what I am against and not the process of changing ideas.

 

[edge]

Pretty much everything is true in a spiritual sense, since none of it is verifiable.

Things that have been verified to myself are not enough to you, you have not chosen to look like I have and that is to cross that line and say ok I believe, show me, and show me the way.

 

[Radrook]

No good scientist should claim this about any theory, especially not one such as the modern synthesis of evolution.

But many do claim it about abiogenesis and evolution and are nevertheless considered respectable trustworthy people.

 

[Dancing David]

I think Sagan said it better:
We are all star dust.

We are stardust,we are a billion year old carbon,
we are golden
We just got caught up in some devil's bargain
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.
-Joni Mitchell Woodstock

 

[RoboTimbo]

But many do claim it about abiogenesis and evolution and are nevertheless considered respectable trustworthy people.

Are you suggesting that you don't believe in abiogenesis?

 

[jadebox]

I agree with you . New evidence should be received as new evidence. But that requires a constant reorganization of our world view. Since that's the case, then our present world view should be considered provisional and NOT an unassailable permanent one.

Even it that were true (which it isn't), why would that make you choose a theory that doesn't explain anything over one which, at this time, does an excellent job of explaining how life evolved on earth?

-- Roger

 

[Radrook]

Then why do you support ID?
It has no evidence, no predictive possibilities and its proponents dogmatically reject to even consider they are wrong. In fact, the entire theory didnt even exist until creationism was kicked out of the US curriculum. Nor can its proponents even forumlate a coherent theory as it runs the range from "Our DNA is fixed and perfect" to "the Intelligence made the first lifeform 3 billion years ago and then left it alone"
If you find the minor discrepancies in the current TOE a flaw, then ID should be even more disagreeable to you.

I don't detect any discrepancies in what I consider a solid logical basis for belief in an ID.


As for the rest if your objections, please note that they are not relevant to the idea's logic.

Let's take coherence as an example. A theory can be pure nonsense and be coherently expressed. In fact, coherence in the service of outlandish ideas is a favorite human pass time as is evidenced by the volumes of coherent drivel Hitler disgorged .


About our DNA being perfect, well, no Bible scholar worth his salt would make that unscriptural claim. The Bible clearly teaches that humans became flawed after fall in Eden.

Also, an ID's involvement or lack of it in his creation has absolutely no bearing on creation. At most it can indicate lack of interest or a decision based on the ID's evaluation. . Nothing more.

Neither does the ID's proponent's ability or inability to formulate coherent arguments. All that proves is that the proponent in question lacks the skills required. Or it can also indicate atheistic refusal to acknowledge his explanations as coherent. In either case, the logic ID remains unassailed.

 

[Olowkow]

...

Let me give an example in order to avoid further misunderstanding of where i stand:

Let's say that I put forth the oscillating theory of the universe as absolute truth. Argue that the other possibilities are drivel, and will forever be drivel. When presented with other possibilities or theories I proclaim them spurious and inapplicable.When confronted with testimony or opinions of qualified scientists who hold an opposite view I proclaim them to be ignorant. When presented with logical reasons why I should be more reasonable I claim that logic is irrelevant.

That's what I am against and not the process of changing ideas.

If you argue with evidence, there is a chance that your claim could become the new science. Without evidence which corresponds to the real world, it is just drivel.

 

[temporalillusion]

Since that's the case, then our present world view should be considered provisional and NOT an unassailable permanent one.

That's exactly what science says; I've said it in this very thread.. in science all knowledge is provisional.

The reason ID is rejected is not because evolution is considered unassailable, it's because ID doesn't even try to assail evolution.. ID is a dogmatic attempt by religious groups to get religion into the science classroom by creating something that sounds like science.

ID has lots of websites, youtube videos, etc, but no actual science.

You See, what I'm arguing against is dogmatism. Dogmatism is not only illogical due to it's inflexible refusal to admit the possibility of any alternate explanations, but it is unscientific as well. It requires an hermetically sealed intellect.

So provide a well supported alternate explanation then! ID hasn't, that's why it doesn't get any traction with people who understand evolution.

I was trying to help you understand evolution by discussing mutations and natural selection, but I take it you aren't interested in that then?

Let's say that I put forth the oscillating theory of the universe as absolute truth. Argue that the other possibilities are drivel, and will forever be drivel. When presented with other possibilities or theories I proclaim them spurious and inapplicable.When confronted with testimony or opinions of qualified scientists who hold an opposite view I proclaim them to be ignorant. When presented with logical reasons why I should be more reasonable I claim that logic is irrelevant.

That's what I am against and not the process of changing ideas.

That's interesting, but I think you still don't get science. And here's the key why.. you seriously wrote this sentence:

When confronted with testimony or opinions of qualified scientists who hold an opposite view I proclaim them to be ignorant.

But anyone who knows science will instantly get a big warning alarm.

Science isn't about testimony or opinions of qualified scientists!! It's about what you can support with evidence.

If you have your oscillating universe theory and you have nothing to support it, and you do as you describe, you will rightly be labeled as a crackpot.

Your last sentence:

When presented with logical reasons why I should be more reasonable I claim that logic is irrelevant.

is a better example of what would be a problem, but science has proven time and again over centuries that it doesn't behave in that manner. An individual might for a time resist change, but science as a whole moves on.

And all of that is interesting, but not really applicable as an analogy with what's happening between evolution and ID, because ID hasn't provided logical reasons why it should be "more reasonable", because ID hasn't brought anything scientific to the table!

But many do claim it about abiogenesis and evolution and are nevertheless considered respectable trustworthy people.

Baloney. Evidence? I'd wager every single scientist who works with evolution if asked "if a better theory came along that explained all the observed phenomenon" will answer that they would accept it.

I linked to you an essay called "Relativity of Wrong", did you read it? It's very applicable here.

 

[joobz]

I don't detect any discrepancies in what I consider a solid logical basis for belief in an ID.

And yet, when asked for a concise statement for the ID hypothesis you:
1.) failed to present one.
and
2.) linked to multiple videos making false claims (and at least in one case, an intentionally deceitful claim).


Perhaps you do not detect any discrepancies because you refuse to actually consider any?

 

[temporalillusion]

I don't detect any discrepancies in what I consider a solid logical basis for belief in an ID.

So you have a logical basis for a believe that is founded on make believe and wishful thinking.. because while it may be logical, it isn't founded on anything real.

ID is a strategy by creationists, nothing more. Read the wedge document.

 

[Belz...]

Things that have been verified to myself are not enough to you, you have not chosen to look like I have and that is to cross that line and say ok I believe, show me, and show me the way.

Edge, your personal impressions do not count as evidence. Not even to you.