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

[Belz...]

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

Of course. That's what unfalsifiability is all about.

 

[Radrook]

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.

Well, as I previously said, you are certainly entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I'm certainly not going to try to dissuade you in your choice of a world view. As Descartes pointed out, that
comes with the territory.
No problem.

 

[Taffer]

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.

Great, then we have nothing to disagree about. I stand by my statement that no good scientist should be dogmatic about anything. I certainly am not dogmatic about evolution, nor are many of the posters here.

 

[Taffer]

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

They might, but you would have to provide some names and quotations, since I am unaware of any respected evolutionary biologist making such claims.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

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 mos it can indicate lack of interest or a decision based on the ID's evaluation of the situation.. Nothing more.

Neither does the 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 opponent refusal to acknowledge his explanations as coherent. In either case, the logic stands firm.

I understand that you find the idea logical, nor do I dispute the fact that logically there is no reason for an intelligence to have interfered in life.
Logically there is an equal amount of room for the earth, the universe and everything to have been created 1 second ago with everything else, including our memories retroactively added.

But as temporalillusion has said, logic is nice and well, but in science evidence is the only way to back up a theory. And there is no conclusive evidence for ID. If anyone ever finds any I'd be happy to be accept the theory, as it would also immediately prove that there is something more out there, which I, wether you believe it or not, would actually find riveting.

Now the fact that there is no evidence for ID might still not discredit it as a theory if any form of meaningful predictions could be made using it. But it also lacks that part. There is nothing in biology or genetics that can be predicted with ID as it stands. In fact, no attempt is even made to make the theory predictive in any way.

As long as it lacks both of these the theory has no place in science.
As long is it lacks either of these it is not as convincing as the current theory of evolution.

This is not dogma, this is common sense.

 

[Radrook]

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

Yep! That's what it ostensibly claims.

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.

This reminds me of a fellow who was instruction another on how to do dental lab articulation work on the plaster bench. Nothing that the trainee did was Right. Finally, noticing the trainee's frustration the fellow smugly said. "It ain't right till I say it' right . So you see-you can't win!"


As I previously said: evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive. So you are creating a straw-man here.

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?

It's precisely because I di understand evolution that I reject it. Anyway, I do accept natural selection and mutational changes up to a point. However, I see absolutely no reason to assume that such a process ultimately turned animals into people.

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

Understanding of science was required for graduation in my field.

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

There you go again Jimmy! So now the scientists who disagree with the evolution theory or with abiogebesis are ignorant of science? LOL That argument doesn't fly. It hobbles.

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

Never said it was or is.
BTW'''

I keep repeating to no apparent avail is that my belief in anb ID is based on logic. I don't see how I can be any clearer than that. Do you?

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.

But there always is something support it. Otherwise it wouldn't qualify as a theory would it? If indeed

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.

Never said it didn't.

BTW
Moving on and backing up several steps or erasing previous steps and then moving on to back up some more. That's why scientific dogmatism's illogical.

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!

Don't need to. Have logic.

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.

Well, that's what the prevailing attitude on this forum conveys, an unassailable certainty based on what evolutionist atheist scientists has told them. Or are you people changing hats as convenience demands?

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

I'll check it out.

 

[sphenisc]

so, do we have a hypothesis yet?


ETA:

Ahh, I see we might be talking about a philosophical proposition rather than anything scientific now. I do hate it when theories say one thing one day and then turn around and say something completely different the next.

 

[Marduk]

As I previously said: evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive. So you are creating a straw-man here.

True true irony


perhaps you could explain the differences between artificial selection and ID Radrook and then why it is that only God can control ID but anyone can control artificial selection despite ID'ers claiming they can't ?
In fact as I have been engaging in artificial selection since I was 5 with fish and I am evidencially in existence, aren't I much more qualified by your own standard to be the God you yearn for ?
i.e. the one who doesn't rely on that faith thing because youve never had any

 

[Paulhoff]

However, I see absolutely no reason to assume that such a process ultimately turned animals into people.

What, are people plants?

You seem to not watch people very well then, I see that we have a hell of a lot in common with animals, and in many ways are below animals on how many people treat others.

Let's just face it, you just don't like being related to apes, that is the real bottom line. You want to be related to a so-called god, it just makes you feel better about youself. I'm sure the apes would be happier too if that was true.

Paul

 

[Radrook]

I understand that you find the idea logical, nor do I dispute the fact that logically there is no reason for an intelligence to have interfered in life.
Logically there is an equal amount of room for the earth, the universe and everything to have been created 1 second ago with everything else, including our memories retroactively added.

'

Now we are getting into the metaphysical where things can become very complex indeed-both for science, religion as well as logic which ultimately depend on sense impressions in which to base their conclusions. Under this scenario, unfortunately for all involved, NOTHING can be conclusively proven as ultimately real in the fullest sense[no pun intended] of the word. So it is really counterproductive to lead the discussion in this direction since it results in a logical Sstalemate for all involved. But if you insist, then well-OK.

But as temporal illusion has said, logic is nice and well, but in science evidence is the only way to back up a theory. And there is no conclusive evidence for ID. If anyone ever finds any I'd be happy to be accept the theory, as it would also immediately prove that there is something more out there, which I, wether you believe it or not, would actually find riveting

''

Ah but you brought in the metaphysical which automatically disqualifies all your scientific data as possible mere illusion as well.

Now the fact that there is no evidence for ID might still not discredit it as a theory if any form of meaningful predictions could be made using it. But it also lacks that part. There is nothing in biology or genetics that can be predicted with ID as it stands. In fact, no attempt is even made to make the theory predictive in any way.

As long as it lacks both of these the theory has no place in science.
As long is it lacks either of these it is not as convincing as the current theory of evolution.

This is not dogma, this is common sense.

Again! Did I say that it is verifiable via science? This s becoming a bit tiresome and useless. Are you really reading what I write?

As I previously pointed out and as any first year student of logic knows,
there are truths independent of collaboration via the scientific method. That's basic concept of cogent reasoning with which most sophomore liberal arts students as well as Natural science students [if they have paid attention]are familiar with.

Perhaps this discussion should be terminated since I don't particularly enjoy having what I say ignored or twisted into something else. Thanks. Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Marduk]

As I previously pointed out and as any first year student of logic knows,
there are truths independent of collaboration via the scientific method.

Straw man fallacy,
Evolution isn't a truth without evidence, its a scientifically verifiable fact,
of course, no one here expects someone whos posts are as full of confirmation bias and self delusion as yours are to know the difference

 

[Taffer]

Radrook, you obviously value logic, so lets stick to that. I know that I am able to state the logic which leads me to arrive at my particular world view, so would you mind outlining the logical reasoning which leads you to favour ID over evolution?

 

[joobz]

It's precisely because I di understand evolution that I reject it.

Your posts on evolution are evidence to the contrary.

 

[Twiler]

'

Now we are getting into the metaphysical where things can become very complex indeed-both for science, religion as well as logic which ultimately depend on sense impressions in which to base their conclusions. Under this scenario, unfortunately for all involved, NOTHING can be conclusively proven as ultimately real in the fullest sense[no pun intended] of the word. So it is really counterproductive to lead the discussion in this direction since it results in a logical Sstalemate for all involved. But if you insist, then well-OK.

''

Ah but you brought in the metaphysical which automatically disqualifies all your scientific data as possible mere illusion as well.




Again! Did I say that it is verifiable via science? This s becoming a bit tiresome and useless. Are you really reading what I write?

As I previously pointed out and as any first year student of logic knows,
there are truths independent of collaboration via the scientific method. That's basic concept of cogent reasoning with which most sophomore liberal arts students as well as Natural science students [if they have paid attention]are familiar with.

Perhaps this discussion should be terminated since I don't particularly enjoy having what I say ignored or twisted into something else. Thanks. Let's just agree to disagree.

There's an old human saying. 'If you speak garbage, expect pain.'

The only truths verifiable without the scientific method are a priori, or hypothetical, dependent on assumptions. Is Intelligent Design a priori, or hypothetical? If the latter, what assumptions is it based upon?

Radrook possibly has me on ignore, given how long it has been since he has responded to anything I have said.

 

[edge]

Ok, but I still do not understand the answers of those answers (2 onwards). Can you please rephrase or explain your answers for me?
1) Is your god the IDer?
2) Why do you believe your god to be correct, and not that of other religions?
3) What evidence would convince you that evolution is correct?
4) What is the difference between micro- and macro-evolution?

The answers I gave.

2. He works in my life because I have crossed that line of belief
3. It is correct things adapt and evolve
4. Micro had information and a machine like way to evolve

2. When I was an atheist I was in the military during that time I tried Transcendental meditation using the Hindu method. It was true, but the scary part is that the Christian beliefs warns us not to do that, so they have some of the truth there is a soul.

I couldn’t figure out why the warnings against practicing the method.

On two occasions I found that there are others out there if they know you are out they try to get in.

On one of those occasions I got into a battle with an entity that was vicious and insane.
This spirit was looking for the angel of death; it didn’t make sense till years later when I found out that a Nazi who was in control of a prison/concentration camp was called that.
I had to keep it away from a child that was sleeping in my house and we battled above and outside of his room.


So who that spirit was I’m not sure, one thing that I am sure of he won and I came back, I didn’t have the knowledge to fight him spiritually in that realm.
He entered his claws for a lack of better words, into the small of my back and from that point on it has given me problems.
I believe it was a demon or a dead victim of the angel of death.
The first incident I did purposefully the second is by accident, those accidental OBEs I had in the past which when done purposefully made me realize and explained those things I thought were just vivid dreams.
An accidental one happened years later and that one because it was accidental reveled to me some great knowledge. That’s in my story along with a better understanding.

3. It is correct things adapt and evolve? In more ways than one. Things in stone don’t lie.


4. If 3 is correct and 2 is correct then it all follows and God had to have a part in both.
That’s as far as I can clarify it for you.
It’s only a micro fragment of what I have that keeps me in my faith.

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

You are correct but sometimes there are too many coincidences that add up to truth.

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.

I didn’t want to get into all that up there and I left out some but we’ll see.

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.

Well that’s refreshing.

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

The most important part is in the New Testaments.
It’s been talk about in my thread, with the relevant excerpts/passage.



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?[/QUOTE]

I believe they have some of the truth and philosophy and that’s all they might need for now but even if you follow their religion it’s somewhat empty and controlling in today’s times.
The reason I say this is you can find out on your own as I did.
But here’s an example of what I am saying.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/June/Indonesias-Religious-Revolution/


4. Micro had information and a machine like way to evolve.
As far as micro I’ll have to find the link that explains it better than I can, since I am not
an expert in that field.
What it says basically is that the information had to come from some one to create the first cell. This comes from experts that have changed their minds.
So there’s a division between those who come up with this stuff, and from my experience it rings true.

Jesus was specific when he said that the flesh of animals is not the same as the flesh of men.
So I believe so I believe that we were modeled or re-created from the apes but not the same.
But even animals are evolving some understanding but like Neanderthals an end comes to the lines.

 

[edge]

What, are people plants?

Paul

We have some of their capabilities we absorb some vitimans from sun light.

 

[Marduk]

We have some of their capabilities we absorb some vitimans from sun light.

nope, sunlight doesn't contain vitamins so therefore they cant be absorbed from it
try again

 

[Paulhoff]

nope, sunlight doesn't contain vitamins so therefore they cant be absorbed from it
try again

That would be like sunlight contains sugar.

Paul

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

@ radbrook

I guess we will have to agree to disagree then. You seem to feel that an assumption only backed by logic is sufficient to warrant full consideration in a scientific curriculum.
I fully disagree with this. Using purely logic people were able to show that the sun orbited the earth. That the earth is hollow. That light is propagated by the aether and a large number of other theories.
As I understand you, anything that can be reasoned solidly with logic is true, regardless of wether there is any evidence for it. I can only say I am happy no serious educational system uses this method, as I'd pity any country that would educate its future generations in that way.

 

[volatile]

Note to the uninitiated: Radrook is a Jehovah's Witness.