Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Subduction Zone]

I have put my house where my mouth is, I've been waiting for a single shred of evidence to support this theory you believe in and yet the silence remains deafening

You cannot demand evidence when you refuse to learn the concept. All that you are doing when you demand evidence right now is displaying hypocrisy. And I am talking about the standard of evidence for all of the sciences. Do you want to be more than a science denier? Then let's go over the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm actually saying that "the theory of evolution" as a whole has been debunked long ago. No evidence has ever been found to support the theory but plenty of damning evidence has been found to dismiss it as a false theory, yet nobody has ever stepped up to defend the charges so the theory remains dead in the water with nothing to revive it.

And yet when creationists try to get their anti-science ignorant idiocy taught in schools they lose lawsuit after lawsuit to even very conservative courts. You have not provided any evidence, you have only listed pseudoscience sources.

You claimed to have been taught critical reasoning. A person that was taught that would never run away from basic concepts as you do.

To debate a topic you know at least the basics. You do not even know that. You are like a child that struggles with addition denying calculus.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you know what a bigot is?

Yes, but you don't. What I wrote was, "Religion is about myths, which is why it contributes nothing to the human fund of knowledge." Bigotry is an irrational and destructive attitude about members of a law-abiding class of people simply for being a member of that group. If I were to make such a comment about religious people, it would be bigotry. I made a claim of fact, one which you could falsify with an example of an idea that can be considered knowledge that derived from a supernatural belief.

The Holy Scriptures have been confirmed (by the worlds most respected historians) to be an accurate record of when time began and when it it end and everything that happens in between.

Scripture is useless for that purpose. It's mythology, not science.

The charges are against your faith in pseudo science, so you need to defend the charges and show is this non existent evidence to float your theory. Otherwise it remains dead in the water

There is no burden of proof with a faith-based thinker. One needs another critical thinker, somebody willing and able to consider an argument dispassionately and open-mindedly, and who is and able to recognize a compelling argument and change his opinion in the presence of one:

• “Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water."? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” - Sam Harris
• The moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

There is no value in trying to teach such people anything.

Every single person is created to worship

I find worship beneath my dignity. I worship nothing and want nothing worshiping me. Love and respect are the currency of healthy relationships.

atheism is a religion by definition, as it requires the highest amount of faith of all other religions.

Agnostic atheism is the only rational position possible for one who has mastered the avoidance of faith-based thought.

Christian Apologists have never given the naysayers a singe inch of territory ad we will never capitulate or consider any of the charges of the unbelievers as the arguments were settled many centuries ago.

I don't think the secular community cares much about what believers think about science.

That blows the theory right out of the water right there

The theory of evolution is doing just fine. It's creationism that's on life support.

The scientific community of experts doesn't care what you believe. But don't feel picked upon. Although I happen to agree with them, they don't care that I do, either.

You have this concept that while the creationists stand in their churches bemoaning the science, that the scientists are hearing them and are busy trying to fend them off or convince them that the science is correct. They're not. There is no debate. They don't hear the creationists much less answer them.

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[F1fan]

Ok you didn't address my points....

Your points mean nothing. We dispute what you write and you keep coming back with more nonsense.

.just personal attacks ....

It's not a personal attack to point out your errors of belief. You are a creationist, and that choice of yours is a liability in open deabte with well educated people. That is YOUR fault.

this means that my arguments where good

No it doesn't. Most every post responding to you is to correct your errors. The only thing you do well is get science wrong.

See how your arrogance and illusion is a flaw? Your ideas would be true IF they were consistent with what experts report. You admit to holding religious beliefs that contradict what experts report, and that makes you wrong every time. Experts are correct. Those who defer to experts are correct. Creationists are incorrect.

 

[F1fan]

I'm actually saying that "the theory of evolution" as a whole has been debunked long ago.

Only from creationist disinformation, which is a Christian ideology that assumes a literalist interpretation of the Bible. So we throw it out. And science carries on.

No evidence has ever been found to support the theory but plenty of damning evidence has been found to dismiss it as a false theory, yet nobody has ever stepped up to defend the charges so the theory remains dead in the water with nothing to revive it.

This is the disinformation fraud of creationism at work on gullible Christians. Meanwhile science carries on beyond this flawed category of believers.

 

[F1fan]

You see @Charles Philips that was my point.


This fanatic extremest atheist instead of addressing the actual point.... he prefered to have a long and boring discussion on semantics.

So not only do you have a problem with sound conclusions in science, you also have a problem with accurate language. Get science right. Get language right.

I often point out the tricky language that creationists use because it is a tactic to blur results in science, to confuse what evidence suggests, and to hide assumptions that are unwarranted. It's all fraud on the part of creationists. That they defy the rules of language suggests an awareness of the corruption of thought.

This is why you should avoid terms like "fully evolved", despite the fact we all know what you mean, fanatic atheist will neat pick in semantics rather than addressing your acctual point.

"Fully evolved" means nothing. It implies there is a goal in evolution, which serves the creationist assumption. To use this phrase in regards to science is deliberate obfuscation. It's another piece of evidence of the corruption of thought by creationists.

 

[Pogo]

This is evolution with a goal in mind, connected to the 2nd law increase. Entropy has to increase, but for life, this increases needs to occur in global quantum steps due to integration of so many parts; e pluribus unum. This is still about evolution, but without the dice and cards, so it can stay rational and have accountability that frees up the creative minds.

Look, we realize that you are a frustrated computer programmer from way back (tape drives?) who didn't have the PhD in math that the bosses had, but they were right in not promoting you as you obviously are a believer who falls back on what they learned from a book without having learned the actual theory, be it math, physics, chemistry and definitely biology. Lots of things you can do, but you are not going to discover a "New Paradigm"

 

[Pogo]

I'm actually saying that "the theory of evolution" as a whole has been debunked long ago. No evidence has ever been found to support the theory but plenty of damning evidence has been found to dismiss it as a false theory, yet nobody has ever stepped up to defend the charges so the theory remains dead in the water with nothing to revive it.

however all you have been able to present is 25+ year old videos that have never generated any interest outside of the religious community.
We are not your echo chamber, If there is anything to your claims, whether presented before or not, present it again. So far you have presented a video that the maker retracted and apologized for and a dishonestly edited propaganda piece. We are the next generation from this stuff and nobody seems to have noticed that these "debunkings" existed except in the way back archives.

If you really have anything, you could bring it on.

Spoiler

You Don't, You Won't

 

[Pogo]

I'm actually saying that "the theory of evolution" as a whole has been debunked long ago. No evidence has ever been found to support the theory but plenty of damning evidence has been found to dismiss it as a false theory, yet nobody has ever stepped up to defend the charges so the theory remains dead in the water with nothing to revive it.

You keep saying it, but words are cheap, we want evidence.

 

[Pogo]

Yer, Nah all of that is pure fantasy. None of it is supported by anything apart from you're imagination. I need proof beyond reasonable doubt and with all due respect your imagination proves noting.

Yer, Nah all of that is pure fantasy. None of it is supported by anything apart from you're imagination. I need proof beyond reasonable doubt and with all due respect your imagination proves noting. Yup, another post that is as well directed at you as us as it contains nothing.

 

[YoursTrue]

It still works as morality tales and as a basis for other literary tools. You do not need a "first sin". You only need to realize that man is imperfect and falls short of what God wants in heaven.

Once again -- it's like weighing one set of thoughts (the Bible is based on myths) with another set of thoughts (the Bible is true).

 

[YoursTrue]

Yer, Nah all of that is pure fantasy. None of it is supported by anything apart from you're imagination. I need proof beyond reasonable doubt and with all due respect your imagination proves noting. Yup, another post that is as well directed at you as us as it contains nothing.

"There was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind's perspective," Hawking said, hinting that a lot of what we believe is derived from a human-centric perspective, which might limit the scope of human knowledge of the world" See? There never was a Big Bang that produced something from nothing...said Dr. Hawking...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again -- it's like weighing one set of thoughts (the Bible is based on myths) with another set of thoughts (the Bible is true).

You are using a bit of a black and white fallacy here. Parts of the Bible are clearly mythical. Does that mean that all of it is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"There was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind's perspective," Hawking said, hinting that a lot of what we believe is derived from a human-centric perspective, which might limit the scope of human knowledge of the world" See? There never was a Big Bang that produced something from nothing...said Dr. Hawking...

When using quotes of others you should include a link. Context is extremely important and people need to be able to check the context. Let me give you an example:

"There is no God" The Bible.

Now how could you possibly refute that? The Bible says that out of context snippet about a dozen different times. Which one was that? You cannot tell, What does it mean in context? You cannot tell. That is why you need links when making that sort of quote.

 

[YoursTrue]

When using quotes of others you should include a link. Context is extremely important and people need to be able to check the context. Let me give you an example:

"There is no God" The Bible.

Now how could you possibly refute that? The Bible says that out of context snippet about a dozen different times. Which one was that? You cannot tell, What does it mean in context? You cannot tell. That is why you need links when making that sort of quote.

OK, I understand. Before I give you the link (and you could look up the statement, but that's not the issue), would you say the universe came from nothing, or it did not come from nothing? (Would you know, by the way?)
I'll give you the link after you answer the question...no problem...

 

[YoursTrue]

You are using a bit of a black and white fallacy here. Parts of the Bible are clearly mythical. Does that mean that all of it is?

Which parts do some say are mythical and which parts are not? Because -- I am going over this again -- if the Adam and Eve account is mythical and they did not exist as said, obviously the genealogy leading to Jesus and/or those before him simply cannot be accurate. So yes, it's an either/or issue.

 

[leroy]

You quote this as if it is set in stone. As if it is fact.

Really? These are my words “while the exact maths are obviously impossible to determine with 100% accuracy, many estimates have been done, showing that BB are much, much, much more likely that FT universes,”

Does this sound like someone who is claiming that the math is written in stone?

Furthermore, you seem to be misrepresenting it as well.
I looked up the text this is mentioned it. Nowhere does it even mention "fine tuning". Instead it talks about a calculation concerning all the potential quantum states of every particle in today's universe in context of entropy.

Yes low entropy is one of the many FT values in question

Do you grant or reject Penrose’s point? That a big universe with low entropy like our universe, is much much more unlikely than a single galaxy or a single solar system-

If not why not?

As for the rest, I think enough people have already answered your drivel.

Jajaja yea sure.

So do you agree with the conclusion? ¿ that the BB paradox refutes any chance hypothesis?

If yes I will proceed in supported the rest of my claims………………..if not, why not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, I understand. Before I give you the link (and you could look up the statement, but that's not the issue), would you say the universe came from nothing, or it did not come from nothing? (Would you know, by the way?)
I'll give you the link after you answer the question...no problem...

It did not come from absolutely nothing from my understanding. I will admit that I am not an astrophysicist and that many if not all of the ideas are beyond me. Here is the problem, I have heard creationists say "You are claiming that the universe came from nothing" and the standard response is "No I am not" and that is eventually followed up with a demand that the creationist define "nothing" which is only reasonable since it is almost always the creationist's claim. And at that point the creationist tends to run away rather than define what they mean by "nothing".

So if you are going to make that accusation please note that I will probably ask you to define "nothing".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which parts do some say are mythical and which parts are not? Because -- I am going over this again -- if the Adam and Eve account is mythical and they did not exist as said, obviously the genealogy leading to Jesus and/or those before him simply cannot be accurate. So yes, it's an either/or issue.

The Adam and Eve part are clearly mythical. As well as the genealogy of Jesus. Tell me, what difference does the genealogy of Jesus make? Why couldn't almost anyone have been the "Son of God".

 

[leroy]

No.
It's natural processes that at some point end up creating a shape that falls in a pattern in which we "see" something.



Well, call me when you have an actual example of such and then we can evaluate it.
I don't see the point in continuing to discuss this bizar hypothetical.


Cool. Nice claim.
Poke me when you have an example of such and then we can discuss it.

Sound like you are saying, “let’s wait until that observation is made, so I can think in an excuse for rejecting design”


All I want to know if there is any observation that would convince that the universe was design.

What if we find more examples of FT? what if we find out that the rage is narrower than previously thought? Is there anything that would convince you?.............or si it that you already made up your mind, and concluded that “nature did it” will always be the answer no matter what?

The example I shared with the stars and the text was just an extreme example FT to see if there is any point where you would change your mind.