Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Then I would suggest that you stop doing that.

I agree. But that won't happen. If the ad hominem, logical fallacies, misinformation, semantics and empty claims are withdrawn, the strict creationist has nothing to post.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The claims against science brought to this thread are typical anti-science devices based on differences over the details of evolution among scientists and do not amount to evidence against the Theory of Evolution. Some of those claims--perhaps all of them--are ridiculous. The presentation of these devices as the dissemination of revealed truth is an ever present feature among creationist anti-science arguments. There has been no presentation of both sides of the debate on the EES by those using it as propaganda to deflate the value of objective science in favor of subjective personal views. No explanations and reasons why the EES should be seen as a replacement rather than and addition to existing theory. It is just claimed that it is so and that all in opposition to that revealed truth have the mental capacity of idiots forever stuck in the lowest levels of grade school for not accepting that revealed truth.

Arguing that unevidenced claims of directed mutation, the absence of gradual change, beavers farming fish for food or delusional conspiracy theories about science as belief in some mythical "peer" IS NOT evidence against a scientific theory. It is all just ridiculous nonsense that is evidence that some people believe what they want to despite the evidence and no amount of evidence will change that.

From the evidence of this thread, those against science are not choosing and using the best evidence and information available. There is much evidence that is inexplicably left out. And much that appears made up or empty. Whole sides of a controversy that are absent and reference to it is dismissed with a hand wave if it is addressed at all. Observation shows cherry picking evidence that fits with views of religion or imagination to support this bias or fabricating it from ignorance and claiming it is the best information. The only information. And all those pointing this out are some sort of "believer" that doesn't examine and weigh evidence, but chooses some sort of conspiracy belief to follow. No evidence for that. Just more revealed truth that should be accepted without question. The anti-science is embraced with zealotry and those that do so cannot even see the flaws in their own logic or don't want to.

Science doesn't work as revealed truth like religion does. It is a different methodology to arrive at conclusions. No amount of ad hominem or deluge of repetition will change those conclusions. Only an objective review of all the evidence, logical argument, and reasoned discussion can effect that. There is a distinct lack of all the best evidence and a clear agenda against science that reveals the scientific way is certainly not being followed or going to be followed by those opposed to science in favor of what they want to believe for whatever reason. Ideological or pathological.

 

[cladking]

The claims against science brought to this thread are typical anti-science devices based on differences over the details of evolution among scientists and do not amount to evidence against the Theory of Evolution.

The only "claims against science" I've seen in this thread are by believers who try shout down logic, evidence, and experiment to replace it with dogma.

Science was never about dogma and has always been about going where the evidence takes us.




I really shouldn't have to say this but a few want to improperly parse everything that isn't dogma but evidence leads us by means of hypothesis, experiment, and the scientific method. Does anyone need another definition for "metaphysics"?

 

[cladking]

You lost all of your past debates.

Ah, yes! The last refuge of those who ignore all the evidence. Just claim you addressed it previously and won.

 

[cladking]

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

View attachment 66565

This is one of the biggest problems with the belief in Evolution. Once you accept the axioms then you start seeing evolution everywhere. Not only in evolutionary theory itself, but also in language, civilization, and science. But the reality is nothing evolves and in waiting for everything to get better and better and more precisely fit to human needs the groundwork of its demise are sown. Civilization doesn't evolve any more than a whale evolves. Civilizations collapse and if conditions are right a new one will arise on the ruins of the last like whales change. We tolerate and allow the thinking and behavior that leads to the collapse because we believe it is perfectly natural "evolution". Rather than adjust imbalances we embrace them. Rather than right injustice we institutionalize it.

But the whole time every believer sees things getting better and better and their pet theory getting stronger and stronger. As it grows more complex to address anomalies they see it getting stronger, more fit, as less fit parts fall to the wayside. So we have schools that don't teach and an economy geared toward self destruction as well as a culture and history being rewritten. Once you believe the fit survive and lead us all to nirvana, utopia, and a glorious future it's just fine that language changes, cultures implode, and the weak die.

And, of course, it's only natural that ancient superstitions like morals and proper behavior don't apply to the wealthy, greedy, and powerful. They don't apply to evolution or our reality extrapolated from science and theory. Rather than read ancient sources they are ignored and if they are read at all by believers they are rejected in their entirety just as surely as Darwin is accepted in his entirety even after modern theory has shown him to be wrong virtually across the board. Once you accept a belief in survival of the fittest you can no longer see the inherent illogic or evidence to the contrary. You can no longer look at reality from another perspective. You are trapped by your belief. Even if Peers said they've been wrong all this time believers would still believe and common wisdom would change one funeral at a time. "Survival of the fittest is fundamental to most believers' beliefs and countless millions have died since Darwin because they were "weak". If you can't outrun the men with the machetes it is only natural you should be hacked to pieces and left to die. If you can profit from shutting down a company or destroying the products then it doesn't matter how many are hurt or the destruction to the commonweal. The strong will survive and the weak die anyway so this becomes the new morals.

 

[Jose Fly]

Even if Gould or others held the false axiom “it must be evolution one way or another” but as a prominent paleontologist, his knowledge of the facts of the fossil record cannot be disputed.

Exactly...you're cherry picking. When Gould says things you like, you post his quotes and expect everyone to bow down to them. But when the very same person says things you don't like, suddenly they aren't so important and can just be waved away.

I realize you'll never admit to any of this (such is the nature of creationism), but it is pretty funny to watch.

I’m not disputing the facts (the world's data), I'm disputing the interpretations. Do you understand?

That's amusing. First, you're not at all qualified to do so. Your posts reveal your knowledge of biology is pretty poor. Second, your "disputing" is little more than empty assertions and "Nuh uh", as we'll see shortly.

False, we see species adapt as a result of directed mutation all the time. We never see a species transforming into another. Species adapt they don’t evolve. We never see millions of random non-beneficial mutations emerging among species to get filtered by selection. There is no evidence of such nonsense. You know that don’t you?

LOL...see what I mean? This is probably the weirdest thing I consistently see from creationists....you seem to think that if you just say things like the above, everyone else will just take your word for it. I guess you all expect folks here to be like "Yeah, I realize scientists across the world all agree that evolution happens and common descent is true, but some anonymous poster at Religious Forums says none of it is actually true, so all those scientists are wrong!"

Here, allow me to demonstrate what you're doing....

The moon is made of cheese.

Is that now true merely because I said so? No? Well, hopefully you now understand how worthless your empty assertions are.

Absolutely not. Mere data is not evidence.

You missed the point entirely, but that's not surprising.

 

[Jose Fly]

Very true, you actually reminded me of what Gerd B. Müller said in the royal society conference in 2016. See # 911
“Sometimes these challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous, but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory”

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

View attachment 66565

LOL....you're not even keeping track of your own arguments. Earlier, you kept spouting off about the EES and how it was somehow simultaneously "widespread" within evolutionary biology and also suppressed due to "dogmatism". But when I pointed out that the EES is just a rethinking of some of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs, you literally said it didn't matter what the EES was.

That's one of the drawbacks of advocating a denialist position....it makes it hard to keep your stories straight.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, yes! The last refuge of those who ignore all the evidence. Just claim you addressed it previously and won.

No, You know that is not true. You do not even understand the concept of evidence. That is why you cannot demand any. And you just demonstrated that again yesterday. You are the one that ignores all evidence. Worse yet you refuse to even try to understand the concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only "claims against science" I've seen in this thread are by believers who try shout down logic, evidence, and experiment to replace it with dogma.

Then please for the love of Quob stop doing so. It is amazing that you can see what you and @LIIA are doing and yet continue to perform these acts.

Science was never about dogma and has always been about going where the evidence takes us.

Exactly! That is what we have been trying to tell you for years. Now all you have to do is to try to understand the concept of evidence. Yet you are scared to death to even try to discuss this topic.

I really shouldn't have to say this but a few want to improperly parse everything that isn't dogma but evidence leads us by means of hypothesis, experiment, and the scientific method. Does anyone need another definition for "metaphysics"?

No, that is not "metaphysics". You were doing so well. Metaphysics is not really part of the discussion. You merely like it because it is not a well defined concept where everything that you are arguing against is well defined and you are always on the losing end.

You were doing so well!! You were describing your problems and lack of education perfectly in the first two thirds of your post, and then you tripped and fell flat on your face at the very end

 

[gnostic]

Absolutely not. Mere data is not evidence. Try to understand what you read before you talk.

Not only you don’t understand the concept of what evidence is, you don’t understand what data is, and data relation to the evidence.

Evidence is the observations of physical phenomena, whether the observation of the evidence is the whole system or parts (eg samples).

In those observations, you would acquire information about the evidence and about the physical phenomena, such as its physical properties and its processes.

These information are called data. Among the common data, are types, forms or structures, quantities, measurements, etc.

For examples, measurements can include the physical dimensions of the evidence (eg length, width, height, etc), the evidence’s mass, density, volume, etc. if the evidence were in liquid form you would measure it capacity (eg pint, liter, etc).

If the object (evidence) is in motion, you may measure speed, direction, momentum, forces, energy, distance travelled, time it take to travel the distance, etc. All these measurements are all data. Other data may be finding out type of locomotive or propulsion system.

If the evidence were electrical, then your data may be measurements of power, voltage, current, etc, or if it conductors or circuitry, then you may measure its resistance.

If the evidence were electromagnetic radiation, your measurements and data, would be wavelength, frequency, types of waveform, or audio/sound, your data could be decibels, signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), amplitude, amplification, etc.

Then there are other data, such as the physical composition of the evidence. The composition may have different components or structures, or you can break them down in their molecular or chemical makeup, etc.

In biology, there are whole array of data, but for human biology, there are number of tests, that provide information about a person, including their health and diagnosing if they have illnesses, diseases, test blood, dna, blood pressure, pulse, used various scans (eg ultrasound, X-ray, MRI, EEG, etc).

These are all examples of what data may acquire from the evidence.

In science, evidence and data are of utmost importance in testing new hypotheses or existing scientific theories.

As I said earlier, there are relationship between evidence & data. You cannot have evidence without some data connected to the evidence.

So data are required in understanding sciences of the physical phenomena.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The only "claims against science" I've seen in this thread are by believers who try shout down logic, evidence, and experiment to replace it with dogma.

Science was never about dogma and has always been about going where the evidence takes us.




I really shouldn't have to say this but a few want to improperly parse everything that isn't dogma but evidence leads us by means of hypothesis, experiment, and the scientific method. Does anyone need another definition for "metaphysics"?

There is really no basis for a rational discussion between us. Most of what you post has no factual basis that I can determine. I can't stop you from responding to my posts, but there is no point in me responding to you any further. I'm just not going to.

 

[cladking]

One thing I've learned about challenging orthodoxy is that I am relentlessly told I'm wrong, that I've been proven wrong, and that I'm not even wrong without one single part of any argument even being addressed. Instead if I make a misstatement, or an error everyone is all over it and even retracting it changes nothing at all. I get ad hominins over and over. I get strawmen, and more than anything I get an endless stream of semantical arguments and word games. People simply refuse to even hear an argument contrary to their deep seated beliefs and then they lecture me about what real scientists believe as though I never heard it before.

We are truly homo omnisciencis and we can't let anything through that doesn't fit our beliefs. We understand everything we see in terms of what we already believe and paradigms are more powerful than God Himself for true believers, most of whom don't really understand the nature of things like paradigms, evidence, and theory: They know only what is what because they read it in a book.

People don't realize just how limiting orthodoxy can be. Critical thinking, imagination, and common sense can be as easily confused as "inflammable", "skeptic", and 'metaphysics". Words change meanings in less than a lifetime. Ideas can become fixed in concrete in a status quo because people would rather be wrong or dead with the cool people than right or alive with crackpots. It's not only science that changes one funeral at a time. To a very real extent reality for homo omnisciencis changes one funeral at a time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One thing I've learned about challenging orthodoxy is that I am relentlessly told I'm wrong, that I've been proven wrong, and that I'm not even wrong without one single part of any argument even being addressed. Instead if I make a misstatement, or an error everyone is all over it and even retracting it changes nothing at all. I get ad hominins over and over. I get strawmen, and more than anything I get an endless stream of semantical arguments and word games. People simply refuse to even hear an argument contrary to their deep seated beliefs and then they lecture me about what real scientists believe as though I never heard it before.

We are truly homo omnisciencis and we can't let anything through that doesn't fit our beliefs. We understand everything we see in terms of what we already believe and paradigms are more powerful than God Himself for true believers, most of whom don't really understand the nature of things like paradigms, evidence, and theory: They know only what is what because they read it in a book.

People don't realize just how limiting orthodoxy can be. Critical thinking, imagination, and common sense can be as easily confused as "inflammable", "skeptic", and 'metaphysics". Words change meanings in less than a lifetime. Ideas can become fixed in concrete in a status quo because people would rather be wrong or dead with the cool people than right or alive with crackpots. It's not only science that changes one funeral at a time. To a very real extent reality for homo omnisciencis changes one funeral at a time.

Correction, you are endlessly shown how how you are wrong and then just go into denial. You can never justify your claims while those that post against you do it quite often.

No one is going to believe you if they read through this thread. That is unless they are as biased and ignorant as you are. Just the other day when I refused to supply you with examples of gradualism because of your behavior @Dan From Smithville did. You immediately went into denial with no support of your claims. By the way, since Dan's evidence was based upon scientific evidence that put the burden of proof upon you. You had none. As usual it was denial and running away

 

[LIIA]

So what? A minority opinion is meaningless

Does “widespread” means minority to you?

In the same lecture, Gerd B. Müller literally said, “this cannot be dismissed as a MINORITY VIEW but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists”. Isn’t that clear enough? Why is the meaningless denial?

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

And they are not discussing whether evolution occurred or not. They all agree on that. They are discussing how it happened. No matter who wins, you are still a monkey.

Yes, they are discussing how it may have happened simply because all the central assumptions of the neo darwinism/modern synthesis were proven false, which necessarily means the theory itself (MS) is false. See #781.

You cannot reject all the fundamental basis of a theory (MS) without demolishing the theory itself, yet as previously explained, the scientists that I quote are all evolutionists, they may hold evolution as an axiom even if the mechanisms are not known or proven false. Evidence/mechanisms or lack of it for that matter doesn’t change this axiomatic status; it must be evolution one way or another.

How they resolve the issue or what theory may or may not emerge to replace the modern synthesis is not my concern. My concern is that the very theory that evolutionists like yourself are advocating for is already proven false.

That said, if you still insist that you’re a monkey and a descendant of fish. It’s your call. It’s your family lineage not mine.

 

[LIIA]

Then I would suggest that you stop doing that.

Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[LIIA]

The claims against science brought to this thread are typical anti-science devices based on differences over the details of evolution among scientists and do not amount to evidence against the Theory of Evolution. Some of those claims--perhaps all of them--are ridiculous. The presentation of these devices as the dissemination of revealed truth is an ever present feature among creationist anti-science arguments. There has been no presentation of both sides of the debate on the EES by those using it as propaganda to deflate the value of objective science in favor of subjective personal views. No explanations and reasons why the EES should be seen as a replacement rather than and addition to existing theory. It is just claimed that it is so and that all in opposition to that revealed truth have the mental capacity of idiots forever stuck in the lowest levels of grade school for not accepting that revealed truth.

Arguing that unevidenced claims of directed mutation, the absence of gradual change, beavers farming fish for food or delusional conspiracy theories about science as belief in some mythical "peer" IS NOT evidence against a scientific theory. It is all just ridiculous nonsense that is evidence that some people believe what they want to despite the evidence and no amount of evidence will change that.

From the evidence of this thread, those against science are not choosing and using the best evidence and information available. There is much evidence that is inexplicably left out. And much that appears made up or empty. Whole sides of a controversy that are absent and reference to it is dismissed with a hand wave if it is addressed at all. Observation shows cherry picking evidence that fits with views of religion or imagination to support this bias or fabricating it from ignorance and claiming it is the best information. The only information. And all those pointing this out are some sort of "believer" that doesn't examine and weigh evidence, but chooses some sort of conspiracy belief to follow. No evidence for that. Just more revealed truth that should be accepted without question. The anti-science is embraced with zealotry and those that do so cannot even see the flaws in their own logic or don't want to.

Science doesn't work as revealed truth like religion does. It is a different methodology to arrive at conclusions. No amount of ad hominem or deluge of repetition will change those conclusions. Only an objective review of all the evidence, logical argument, and reasoned discussion can effect that. There is a distinct lack of all the best evidence and a clear agenda against science that reveals the scientific way is certainly not being followed or going to be followed by those opposed to science in favor of what they want to believe for whatever reason. Ideological or pathological.

It’s ironic that the person who can write that long fallacious claims cannot write a single word to address the specific argument addressed to him. The question about "the transitional forms from tiktaalik to homo sapiens?" was addressed to you in my post #2132. My other question in #2137, “Whether was there ever a theory addressing the passage/diversion of air or food to either the trachea or the esophagus in mammals” was addressed to everyone including you. No one stepped forward to answer. As usual, either there is no response at all, or you respond by fallacious claims and meaningless denial. The same was true for #1864, #2090, #1245, #1992.

It clearly demonstrates the failure/inability of evolutionists such as yourself to engage in a rational argument.

If you don’t agree, simply pick one of these posts mentioned above and state your rational reasons for your disagreement, if you can’t, then you may stay quiet, don’t write fallacious nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does “widespread” means minority to you?

In the same lecture, Gerd B. Müller literally said, “this cannot be dismissed as a MINORITY VIEW but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists”. Isn’t that clear enough? Why is the meaningless denial?

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

View attachment 66649



Yes, they are discussing how it may have happened simply because all the central assumptions of the neo darwinism/modern synthesis were proven false, which necessarily means the theory itself (MS) is false. See #781.

You cannot reject all the fundamental basis of a theory (MS) without demolishing the theory itself, yet as previously explained, the scientists that I quote are all evolutionists, they may hold evolution as an axiom even if the mechanisms are not known or proven false. Evidence/mechanisms or lack of it for that matter doesn’t change this axiomatic status; it must be evolution one way or another.

How they resolve the issue or what theory may or may not emerge to replace the modern synthesis is not my concern. My concern is that the very theory that evolutionists like yourself are advocating for is already proven false.

That said, if you still insist that you’re a monkey and a descendant of fish. It’s your call. It’s your family lineage not mine.

If you cannot be reasonable there is no point in having a discussion. Can you see at least one glaring error in your post? I can.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Pigeon chess is not a game I wish to play.

 

[LIIA]

Exactly...you're cherry picking. When Gould says things you like, you post his quotes and expect everyone to bow down to them. But when the very same person says things you don't like, suddenly they aren't so important and can just be waved away.

I realize you'll never admit to any of this (such is the nature of creationism), but it is pretty funny to watch.

Nonsense, Let’s assume you elected a president or a politician, do you necessarily have to agree with everything he does? If you disagree with some of his actions for good reasons, is that cherry picking?

You never entirely agree with someone, whether it’s science, politics, philosophy, or anything at all. As long as you have reasons for your disagreement, it’s not cherry picking. Its only cherry picking if you pick and choose for no logical reason.

When it comes to the data/observations of the fossil record, it's just facts (it's not an opinion). It cannot be disputed.

When it comes to his opinion (axiom) about evolution, why should I adapt it if Gould himself acknowledged that the real-world data don’t support it? He said, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”

Like all evolutionists, He held evolution as an axiom regardless and before any evidence. Why should I do the same? And if I don’t, is that cherry picking?

That's amusing. First, you're not at all qualified to do so. Your posts reveal your knowledge of biology is pretty poor. Second, your "disputing" is little more than empty assertions and "Nuh uh", as we'll see shortly.

Nonsense, the attributes of the person making an argument is not your concern. Your concern is the argument itself, and again, it’s not my claim, it’s the assertion of the experts as you have seen above. Gould said, “we never see the very process we profess to study.” The problem is never the facts, it's the interpretations.

LOL...see what I mean? This is probably the weirdest thing I consistently see from creationists....you seem to think that if you just say things like the above, everyone else will just take your word for it. I guess you all expect folks here to be like "Yeah, I realize scientists across the world all agree that evolution happens and common descent is true, but some anonymous poster at Religious Forums says none of it is actually true, so all those scientists are wrong!"

Here, allow me to demonstrate what you're doing....

The moon is made of cheese.

Is that now true merely because I said so? No? Well, hopefully you now understand how worthless your empty assertions are.

Again, it’s not my word, attacking the attributes of the person making an argument is a fallacious "ad hominem". Your concern is the argument not the person. Your argument that the majority think so is a fallacious “argumentum ad populum". Widespread acceptance is not a justification of validity. Most of these scientists that you are referring to are followers not leaders. The leaders such as Denis Noble and Gerd B. Müller and many others are advocating for a change because the ToE (MS) invokes a set of unsupported assumptions. These leaders are disputing the assumption of random mutations and the assumed role natural selection as well as all central assumptions of the MS.

Yes, these scientists are evolutionists; they hold evolution as an axiom " it must be evolution one way or another” same as you and any other evolutionist, for any evolutionist, evolution is true before the evidence. The difference is that these scientists know that the assumptions of the modern synthesis that all of you accept blindly are false/disproved.

If you want, you can insist to be an evolutionist, but you should know that all assumptions and concepts in your head that you accepted blindly about evolution are false, and again it’s not my claim. It's the assertions of the top scientists.

You missed the point entirely, but that's not surprising.

It's not about the data, it's about how you interpret it. Data shouldn’t be interpreted individually based on axiom/priori. It should be interpreted collectively based on the logical rules of valid inference. If gradualism is a global hypothesis/claim for every organism ever lived, then relative frequency of evidence is a decisive factor either with or against the hypothesis. If it’s against, then the hypothesis is false and shouldn’t be used to interpret individual observation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s ironic that the person who can write that long fallacious claims cannot write a single word to address the specific argument addressed to him. The question about "the transitional forms from tiktaalik to homo sapiens?" was addressed to you in my post #2132. My other question in #2137, “Whether was there ever a theory addressing the passage/diversion of air or food to either the trachea or the esophagus in mammals” was addressed to everyone including you. No one stepped forward to answer. As usual, either there is no response at all, or you respond by fallacious claims and meaningless denial. The same was true for #1864, #2090, #1245, #1992.

It clearly demonstrates the failure/inability of evolutionists such as yourself to engage in a rational argument.

If you don’t agree, simply pick one of these posts mentioned above and state your rational reasons for your disagreement, if you can’t, then you may stay quiet, don’t write fallacious nonsense.

You are getting into some very specific and rather pointless questions there. If you really want an answer you need to talk to experts in the field. But it appears what you are trying to do is to find some minor area where the answer is "we don't know yet" and then act as if that refutes the whole theory. That is akin to trying to get a Not Guilty verdict for a killer because the police do not know what he had for breakfast a year ago.