Fallacies of Evolution Redux

Discussion in 'Science' started by ChemEngineer, May 9, 2017.

  1. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course, this is just a wordy, convoluted riff on the old denier canard: "observational versus historical science". It is absurd and nothing but a fetish for deniers.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2018
    dagosa and WillReadmore like this.
  2. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You source as well as all others ARE talking about Darwin evolution in red bold letters.

    There were two bets:

    1. You, or any other believer show one, just one practical use of ToE.

    2. Or one just one case when it somehow made into any Nobel.


    Not even one was given until you run into this week announcement.


    I pointed that neither chemists nor Nobel Comittee have any clue about evolution, and evolution was used by them only as a metaphor and as advertisement for investors in the new directions of the research in chemistry coming from Germany ( I think the name of the guy looking for investors was Sech… I am not sure)., but not as any method for the research.


    That’s all.


    Do I think I am a super smart debater who can weasel his way out of any facts?

    How do I know that in millions of papers there is and there will not even one example of practice application on ToE?

    I am simply arguing the scientific method which has been working like a charm for almost 400 years, while you and the believers in evolution are arguing against it.

    One does not have to be very smart and educated to understand the scientific method, which take less than a 1/4 of a page with .another 1/2 of a page of explanations.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2018
  3. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ask Einstein.

    It was enough for Einstein to just say

    .... God...

    to make Taxy to react like a bull on a red rag.


    Hey dagosa,





    ..... God...
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2018
  4. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You didn't answer my Last post..
    Just some mention of Bullets.
    You can murder somone throwing them off a boat.
    Or putting a pillow over their heads.
    etc

    You WHIFFED on everything else.
    Your NO EVIDENCE GOD/KWEATIONIST theory.
    "species".

    etc

    as to your last TROLLing portion
    again here's Einstein MENTIONING ..... "god" .....
    which obviously ruined Your day/theory.

    Einstein, and other physicists oft have a concept of AWE about the universe, some call 'god', but NOT in the personal religion sense.

    Einstein's letter to Gutkind, Auctioned a few years ago.

    ".. "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses,
    the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
    No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

    These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature
    and have almost nothing to do with the original text.
    For me the Jewish religion, like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions." ..."​

    `

    `
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2018
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not sure how the above applies to the issue of evolution or the issue of scientific method.
    Scientists working under laboratory conditions absolutely have watched new species form.

    It's possible to analyze what happened to the point of understanding the various mechanisms involved. For example, one can find doublings of portions of the genetic material.

    Also, examination of living and fossilized life forms leads to clear lines of descent as the only explanation.
     
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Practical use is absolutely and totally irrelevant to science. Science is the exploration of how things work. Knowing how something works may or may not be of known value. Sometimes, engineers find some use - something that may happen years later ... or never.
    This year there were Nobel prizes in chemistry awarded for work in evolution.

    To me, they look more like engineering than science, as they have to do with finding ways to speed up or otherwise use certain mechanisms that support evolution.
    And?
    ??? Even YOU mentioned this week's announcement. So, YOU (who has no clue about evolution) claim that those awarding Nobel prizes are idiots!!!

    Cute!
    AGAIN, whether there is a useful application is totally irrelevant. Finding useful applications is an engineering objective. The objective of science is to understand how stuff works.
    Well, so far that 3/4 page didn't manage to explain well enough what the OBJECTIVE of scientific method is.

    I don't know, guy, but that seems like a pretty big hole to me.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2018
  7. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    God is not a religion.
    Which one is yours ? .You have until the rooster crows tomorrow morning. You aren’t going to deny it are you ?
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2018
  8. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Canis lepophagus

    Canis lepophagus , believed to be the ancestors of modern wolves and coyotes, appeared in the fossil record in North America about 34 million years ago. We find their fossils in layers from 34 million years ago until about 12 million years ago. They do not appear in the fossil record before or since.

    Where did they come from?

    Where did they go?
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  9. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,532
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) Why does there have to be a practical use of ToE? (Though understanding why bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics is fairly important).
    2) I'll give you that was pure luck on our side, but I'll take it! :D

    In all reality, it doesn't matter if evolution has a practical use or that a Nobel Prize was ever given to anything dealing with evolution, it does not invalidate nor diminish the ToE in any way.

    It is funny how creationists are always going on how evolution doesn't use the scientific method (not counting the thousands of studies and papers that show otherwise), only to have creationism fail the most basic, cursory attempts at the scientific method.

    In psychology this is called projection.
     
  10. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113

    These guys think that science is a debate exercise. It isn’t and never was. Scientists ARE NOT DEBATERS. Neither are the institutions like Heritage or the Federalists which are all political groups. They ( ligit science) is made of fact finders, experimenters and evidence gatherers. That scares these god fearing conspiracy theorists who want tongues of fire to reveal their ideas , not the real truth . They’re all fkn intellectually lazy looking for a misiah instead of getting off their lazy asteroids and gathering real evidence.
     
    DarkDaimon and tecoyah like this.
  11. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @_Inquisitor_



    Canis lepophagus

    Canis lepophagus , believed to be the ancestors of modern wolves and coyotes, appeared in the fossil record in North America about 34 million years ago. We find their fossils in layers from 34 million years ago until about 12 million years ago. They do not appear in the fossil record before or since.

    Where did they come from?

    Where did they go?
     
  12. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @_Inquisitor_



    Canis lepophagus

    Canis lepophagus , believed to be the ancestors of modern wolves and coyotes, appeared in the fossil record in North America about 34 million years ago. We find their fossils in layers from 34 million years ago until about 12 million years ago. They do not appear in the fossil record before or since.

    Where did they come from?

    Where did they go?
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a strong point. Over and over, evidence shows species coming into view at dramatically different points in time.

    The idea of a one time creation just doesn't come close to matching what is found.
     
  14. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Right. As the principles of geology -- and therefore the actual age of the earth -- came into focus in the 18th and 19th centuries, this caused a crisis for an intellectual world still dominated by ignorance and religious beliefs. The first solution was to declare that the gods had played a trick on us to test our faith.

    Think of the poverty of intellectualism, curiosity, and ethics required to believe such a wild idea. This poverty was the default setting for many very smart people, who did not have the benefit of the the current state of our intellectual and scientific enlightenment. Hard to imagine...

    But yet, still today, we have ostensibly intelligent people suffering from the same poverty of intellectual honesty, ethics, and curiosity. While the intellectuals of the 18th century may have had cover for this bad behavior (in the form of their abject ignorance), modern people, with their easy access to the world's scientific knowledge, have NO such excuse.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2018
  15. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is imagined and believed, only.

    There is no empirical validity to the assumptions made in the dating methods, strata levels, and the phylogenetic tree.

    The times are conjecture, based on flawed data, circular reasoning, and impossible assumptions.

    The fossil record proves nothing about universal common descent, and has many problems for the uniformitarian beliefs.

    There are other possibilities, that are contrary to these assumptions of uniformity, dating methods, strata formation, and other assumptions in the common descent theory. The facts do not COMPEL the conclusion of UCD. They only suggest plausibility. That is not 'settled science!' That is a religio/philosophical belief.
     
  16. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And not one thing resembling an argument or a shred of evidence to be found in this self-soothing word salad.

    Compare that to the mountains of mutually supportive evidence across all fields of science for universal common descent.

    What level of self delusion is required to fool one's self into thinking that such an authoritative rant presents any actual challenge to accepted scientific facts? This guy has spent too much time suckling at the nipple of authoritative religious hooha.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2018
    Taxonomy26 and Cosmo like this.
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, please. There are numerous dating techniques. No dating technique is used alone - there are always multiple methods used. It's just not realistic to suggest that dates are so wrong as to falsify the theory of evolution.

    You've been asked many times to propose or cite alternatives to the theory of evolution.
     
    Taxonomy26 and Cosmo like this.
  18. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He is not going to cite the only alternative that he will even consider, as he knows how weak and anti intellectual it sounds to say, "god poofed it all into existence 6000 years ago, because I said so!"

    So, don't hold your breath. Instead you will be treated to a barrage of falsehoods and fallacy, an embarrassing dog and pony show meant to cover for the real reasons for his objections, which he knows sound ridiculous.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2018
    Cosmo likes this.
  19. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I said many times that I have only one belief in God in difference from you who has a myriad of different beliefs.
    Science discusses only observed phenomena, events, happenings.
    Your speculations are as good as anybody's else, I only point that neither your speculations nor anybody else's speculations have any place in natural sciences.
    How many guesses are in you post?
     
  20. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I got it long time ago - Einstein did not like God in one of thousands of his letters, you don’t like God neither and that makes you the same as Einstein.
    The subject of the conversation is not Einstein’s abilities in theology, but Einstein’s opinion about science and the scientific method, cross checked with other facts.
    Stay on the subject and try to rise a reasonable and factual objection to what Einstein said on science and the scientific method.

    In the beginning (if there was such a thing), God created Newton’s laws of motion together with the necessary masses and forces. This is all; everything beyond this follows from the development of appropriate mathematical methods by means of deduction. — Albert Einstein


    No one must think that Newton’s great creation can be overthrown in any real sense by this [Theory of Relativity] or by any other theory. His clear and wide ideas will forever retain their significance as the foundation on which our modern conceptions of physics have been built. — Albert Einstein
     
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it makes your claim that Einstein supports your religious ideas to be no more than misdirection at best.
     
  22. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Sure, observation of evidence, observation of phenomena have nothing to do to evolution and the scientific method.
    Welcome to the arrival to the state of total denial.
    Hey, what is the scientific method, who, when and where did formulate it and how it was followed?



    Do you understand what is the phenomenon, an event, a happening of appearance of new species out of previous ones?
    Ask Mircea :
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-80#post-1069680060


    It is like there was one specie of bacteria and in 40,000 generations, natural and forced ( when legs are persistently torn off by scientists and new legs are sawn instead) mutilations another specie of bacteria or whatever is observed to appear.
    It is like there was the drosophila fly and after 150 years of experiments and 100,000 generations another specie of a fly or whatever appeared.
    Understand?

    As there cannot be an evidence of the Flying Spaghetti monster, there cannot be an evidence new species appearing out of previous ones because neither the FSM nor a single event of a new specie appearing out of old ones have ever been observed and never ever will be observed.

    Evidence of FSM and evidence of evolution are a fantasy, a mental delusion.
     
  23. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Delusion or lie.
    Where did I ever made such a claim?
    Where did I ever posted any of my religious ideas on this tread?
    Believers in evolution are truly delusional.
     
  24. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You didn't answer the questions. I will try this again:

    @_Inquisitor_



    Canis lepophagus

    Canis lepophagus , believed to be the ancestors of modern wolves and coyotes, appeared in the fossil record in North America about 34 million years ago. We find their fossils in layers from 34 million years ago until about 12 million years ago. They do not appear in the fossil record before or since.

    Where did they come from?

    Where did they go?
     
  25. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    How would a believer in evolution ever know what is science and what is not?
    Science is obviously totally opposite to what believers in evolution say it is.
    Believers in evolution are totally totalitarian, science isn't and never was.
     

Share This Page