Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

One week source that you did not understand is not a refutation.

And even worse, that is merely a proposal that how evolution occurs needs a more thorough explanation. It is not a refutation of evolution. All of those people know that you are still a monkey.

By the way, that is not an insult. It is a fact. All people are "monkeys'.

What you think of evolution is irrelevant. It’s your concern. I am stating some facts that you have no basis to deny.

Again, Neo-Darwinism/Modern Synthesis (MS) contradicts empirical evidence of latest science; it’s an outdated theory that should be replaced. Other than that, currently there is no alternative that could provide an agreed upon theoretical paradigm as an acceptable replacement to the disproved MS. This is where the ToE stands today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t share the same lineage with you.

Do you even see how ridiculous is your claim? I guess you don’t.

Really? So you are not a human being? Wow! I am up for a Nobel Prize for discovering a non-human intelligence!


Yee Hah!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are making an irrelevant empty claim about Islam in an attempt to get the discussion about the MS out of track. Islam has nothing to do with our discussion. I never claimed the MS is false because of any religious beliefs

LOL! There you go refuting your own argument again. I know that you logic is bogus. Now it appears that you know it is bogus too.

Listen very carefully. I was using the same "logic" that you were using. Your ability to reason is extremely poor when it comes to the sciences. You can see that that sort of logic is nonsense when it is applied to religion. You should see that it is worthless when applied to the sciences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you think of evolution is irrelevant. It’s your concern. I am stating some facts that you have no basis to deny.

Again, Neo-Darwinism/Modern Synthesis (MS) contradicts empirical evidence of latest science; it’s an outdated theory that should be replaced. Other than that, currently there is no alternative that could provide an agreed upon theoretical paradigm as an acceptable replacement to the disproved MS. This is where the ToE stands today.

Nope. You are spewing ignorant nonsense again. I might as well try to tell you the true meaning of Islam. In fact you know less about the sciences than I know about Islam and I do not know very much about Islam at all.

 

[LIIA]

Nope. You are spewing ignorant nonsense again. I might as well try to tell you the true meaning of Islam. In fact you know less about the sciences than I know about Islam and I do not know very much about Islam at all.

Ok, Have a good night

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, Have a good night

Good night. Think about the logic that you are using before you debate again. I am not saying that Islam has been refuted, I am saying that by your standards of reasoning it has been refuted.

 

[YoursTrue]

It’s not my version. I don’t have any version. It’s yours, you advocate it, but you don’t see it or understand it, you insist that the modern synthesis is a solid theory yet ignorant of the fact that it’s a theory without any basis to stand on after all of its fundamental assumptions already got disproved.

It's amazing how those believing unequivocally in the theory will stand by it even though there is no substantiation except in conjecture and some fusion/fission in a testtube. (yikes)

 

[YoursTrue]

I don’t share the same lineage with you.

Do you even see how ridiculous is your claim? I guess you don’t.

I'm not sure who you are responding to when you post some things but don't you believe we all come from Adam and Eve?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's amazing how those believing unequivocally in the theory will stand by it even though there is no substantiation except in conjecture and some fusion/fission in a testtube. (yikes)

Who are these "believers" you speak of? Science is not believed in as if it were some sort of religion. I accept the rational, scientific explanation for the observations and that acceptance is not unequivocal. Unequivocal acceptance is a creationist, doctrinal paradigm.

And I have my personal beliefs in Christianity that follow a different doctrine than yours. What creationists are really saying is that a person cannot have God and science at the same time and that is an unacceptable position in my view.

That is the point, there is plenty of evidence and the explanations of that evidence is not conjecture no matter how many times deniers of it repeat that claim. If repeating a claim is all it takes then let's repeat "I'm a billionaire" together. Do you want to rule the world? Repeat after you.

What is even more amusing in light of your claim of a lack of substantiation is one of the major claims of creationism that is made on this thread. It has been turned into an add campaign here. "Science fails, because science has shown it has failed".

The add campaign repeats this ridiculous claim over and over and over and over and over...along with the declaration of victory for creationism. The irony is, and this clearly escapes the limited vision and knowledge behind the claim, the evidence of science and the conclusions of evolutionists are being used to declare evolution is dead when those scientists aren't saying that at all.

Here is what the EES controversy is saying. Some scientists think that a body of accumulating evidence is not fully explained by the existing theory and that theory needs to revamped or replaced with a more complete "Theory of Evolution". While other scientists disagree with that and maintain this body of evidence falls within the scope of the existing theory.

It makes as much sense as claiming that divergent opinions among economists means that capitalism fails or that differences of opinion among doctors means that we no longer have the field of medicine.

I'm OK that people have their own belief systems and choose follow different doctrines in maintaining that belief, but there is no evidence beyond belief that one is "true system" and all others fail. No one has shown that, ever. Even if I think my beliefs are the correct way of believing, I don't have any way to show that and I don't pretend to. I might think it, but that isn't an argument about science.

If the argument against the theory of evolution contained more than repetition of doctrine, denial and declarations of victory, (I like to think of them as the 3 D's) it would be refreshing. And it would make this more than something comparable to an analogy of pigeons or parrots playing chess. Those scientists that are challenging the existing theory using the evidence they have are the only people doing what creationists have wrongly claimed they have been doing since Darwin.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not sure who you are responding to when you post some things but don't you believe we all come from Adam and Eve?

What if someone were to apply the arguments you have been using against evolution to a belief in Adam and Eve? If you consider your arguments about evidence and claims of conjecture to be valid against science, then they are valid against your claims of Adam and Eve as well.

Ironic isn't it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope. You are spewing ignorant nonsense again. I might as well try to tell you the true meaning of Islam. In fact you know less about the sciences than I know about Islam and I do not know very much about Islam at all.

In my observations of the Default Paradigm, it is the view of the particular person making the claim that their personal religious views are the default winner against controversy within science. If that person follows Islam, than Islam is the default answer. If it is Christianity, then some version of Christianity is the default. And so on. With no belief superior to any other except in the fact of which believer is making the default claim.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm not sure who you are responding to here. But I can guess. Personally, I see no value in the biased, uninformed positions that are just the incessant parroting of dead claims with no substance. So I fixed it to no longer see them at all. I found those words to be unimportant and not worth seeing.

As an example, I think the Default Paradigm is one of the key straw men that is thrown out to be beaten to death as if it means something and achieves something. The only achievement I have seen here is that the anti-science, "my ideology wins by default" crowd know so little about the science they deny that their versions of if cannot be anything but garbled, simple and generally inconsistent with facts and logic.

What have we seen here to be hurled at theory? Repetitive written versions of the Gish Gallop repeated ad nauseum. Failed. Denis Noble says "touch your toes" isn't an argument. It comes off looking like a parrots playing chess.

Constantly conflating the origin of life with the evolution of life so that they can defeat an argument that doesn't exist. Beating a dead horse comes to mind.

Misrepresenting what anyone supporting science says and then demeaning those folks by claiming they are children without anything valid to contribute against the opposing the position. We don't really need to see that, let alone see it repeated as if it is a significant argument against science. It is as meaningful as the central theme of this thread of attacking poor old, dead Darwin.

Then there is the old and getting older attempt to take any disagreement or argument in science as the collapse of the entire field. How many times have we seen that lead to premature and flaccid declarations of victory? More of the same old chess.

You and I and many of us are aware that a scientific theory stands until new information comes along that clearly and consistently stumps that theory. Something new is not only unexplained by the existing theory, but can't be explained by it. Even if that has happened or will happen to the existing theory of evolution, that doesn't mean what creationists want it to mean no matter how hard they click their ruby slippers together and chant "There's no place for science". Explanations that supplant existing theory are going to be scientific and not "my favorite belief system wins by default". Not only that, but claims here that all the assumptions of the theory of evolution have been refuted are untrue.

It is my opinion that all that we have seen here are either the same old dead claims and meaningless attempts at arguments or a few slightly modified versions of those. I would love to see an expanded discussion of the extended evolutionary synthesis, but you won't see that here. Here claims about it are used as if it were a bludgeon with no attempt to explain it, support or provide unbiased discussion of the points and counterpoints. It's only purpose seems to be in declaring it refutes the theory of evolution, which makes no sense at all. A theory of evolution defeats a theory of evolution therefore there is no such thing as evolution? What kind of nonsense is that and to see it fronted as if it were some sort of reasoned explanation that requires no support. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I would have thought it was some sort of really bad joke. About as irrational as claiming the theory of evolution is inherently evil.

Good to see you back. I'm still considering a few subjects for threads including an actual discussion of the theory of evolution and the extended evolutionary synthesis. When I get to feeling better, I may set one up. No straw men allowed.

To think we saw it all here on Mulberry Street.

Very well put, especially "incessant parroting of dead claims". Many creationists operate under the assumption that an argument becomes more persuasive the more you repeat it.

But I'm wondering what happened to @LegionOnomaMoi who didn't like how I was handling the discussion. I guess he just wanted to throw some rocks from the sidelines, but not actually get in the game himself.

 

[cladking]

Who are these "believers" you speak of? Science is not believed in as if it were some sort of religion. I accept the rational, scientific explanation for the observations and that acceptance is not unequivocal. Unequivocal acceptance is a creationist, doctrinal paradigm.

Nobody needs to believe in science because they are right. They are holiest than thou.

Homo omnisciencis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Very well put, especially "incessant parroting of dead claims". Many creationists operate under the assumption that an argument becomes more persuasive the more you repeat it.

But I'm wondering what happened to @LegionOnomaMoi who didn't like how I was handling the discussion. I guess he just wanted to throw some rocks from the sidelines, but not actually get in the game himself.

I think it is that and the fact that many of them know so little about the actual science that they think they have come up with some new, never-before-seen, gotcha denial that is just the same old, same old.

I was hoping that this thread might develop into a genuine discussion of science coming out of those posts. I did appreciate the articles that were posted and that they were more than just Denis Noble says touch your toes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's amazing how those believing unequivocally in the theory will stand by it even though there is no substantiation except in conjecture and some fusion/fission in a testtube. (yikes)

But you have to know what you just wrote is false. Since you refuse to understand the basics of science it might have to be "conjecture" for you. There is no conjecture in the sciences.

 

[YoursTrue]

Very well put, especially "incessant parroting of dead claims". Many creationists operate under the assumption that an argument becomes more persuasive the more you repeat it.

But I'm wondering what happened to @LegionOnomaMoi who didn't like how I was handling the discussion. I guess he just wanted to throw some rocks from the sidelines, but not actually get in the game himself.

What's a "creationist"? @metis also.

It is the literal view of an allegory as if it were a word for word factual recounting of events that took place as described.

I don't know what you are talking about regarding deformities.

Your ignorance of the origin and evolution of insects is a gap argument. That you do not know does not mean there isn't an explanation based on evidence to be found using science and logic. Isn't claiming your ignorance delimits human knowledge a sort of hubris?

Attacking what I believe is meaningless in a discussion of science, knowledge acquired through logical means based on evidence and rationally conclusions based on that. Attacking what you believe is of no value to me. You believe something, yet having that belief has done you no good here. All you have achieved is to declare you have a doctrine and that you must deny science to adhere to that doctrine. We may both be Christian, but I don't follow you doctrine and am no less Christian for that. The evidence remains and the explanations of that evidence require knowledge, understanding and reasoning to support or alter them. Belief does nothing in the context.

OK, I realize you may not comprehend what I'm saying because we are speaking two different languages although English. Thus I speak to you in the best way possible.
I worked for a professor at one time. He was the head of a lab in a technical college. His goal was working with students and separating water into hydrogen and oxygen. In order to do so, of course you and others must know this, a current must pass through a water electrolyte. So experiments do not demonstrate how evolution occurs. Yes, no matter what a person thinks or believes, it is God that will make the grand decision about outcome.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is the literal view of an allegory as if it were a word for word factual recounting of events that took place as described.

I don't know what you are talking about regarding deformities.

Your ignorance of the origin and evolution of insects is a gap argument. That you do not know does not mean there isn't an explanation based on evidence to be found using science and logic. Isn't claiming your ignorance delimits human knowledge a sort of hubris?

Attacking what I believe is meaningless in a discussion of science, knowledge acquired through logical means based on evidence and rationally conclusions based on that. Attacking what you believe is of no value to me. You believe something, yet having that belief has done you no good here. All you have achieved is to declare you have a doctrine and that you must deny science to adhere to that doctrine. We may both be Christian, but I don't follow you doctrine and am no less Christian for that. The evidence remains and the explanations of that evidence require knowledge, understanding and reasoning to support or alter them. Belief does nothing in the context.

Certainly belief counts for a lot, either way. However things were made, I no longer believe they happened by chance or sheer natural selection as to survival.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Certainly belief counts for a lot, either way. However things were made, I no longer believe they happened by chance or sheer natural selection as to survival.

Yes, that is why evolution is treated as a fact. Just like gravity. All of the scientific evidence supports evolution and none of it refutes it. Just as all of the scientific evidence supports the concept of gravity.

Creationism on the other hand has no evidence. Most creationists do not even understand the concept of evidence and are afraid to learn The few that do understand the concept never can seem to find any evidence for creationism.

By the way, you do not know that "things were made". You only believe that and worse yet that is a belief that you cannot support with evidence. In a debate evidence can be your friend or it can be your enemy. In evolution debates creationists always treat evidence as if it were the enemy, though for anyone to accept their irrational beliefs they should realize that they need to support them with evidence.

 

[LIIA]

one source is not a "refutation"

It’s not one source. Multiple sources were provided specifically addressing the fact about Neo-Darwinism/Modern Synthesis being challenged and in need for replacement. See #2370, #911 & #781.

The article below stated, “There is a growing constituency among biologists and other evolutionary theorists these days in favor of the once heretical idea that the time has come to move decisively beyond the Modern Synthesis in evolutionary biology”

Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis (religiousforums.com)

What you and others repeatedly failed to understand is that I’m addressing current status of the evolutionary theoretical framework not what you, other evolutionists or scientists believe or don’t believe about evolution as an axiom. It’s irrelevant to my argument. Can you understand the difference?

Here is summary of the overall status/facts today specifically with respect to the explanatory theoretical framework concerning the concept of evolution:

a) Abiogenesis didn’t get established or accepted as a scientific theory because of the lack of evidence.

b) Neo-Darwinism/Modern Synthesis (MS) contradicts empirical evidence of latest science; it’s an outdated theory that should be replaced.

c) Currently there is no alternative theory that could provide an agreed upon theoretical paradigm as an acceptable replacement to the disproved MS.

The facts above cannot be disputed. You may dwell in your denial if you wish but that doesn’t change the fact that currently evolution as a theory does not have any agreed upon explanatory theoretical framework consistent with latest empirical evidence of the 21st century.

Without established agreed upon theoretical framework, evolution as a theory has no basis to stand on.

 

[LIIA]

Good night. Think about the logic that you are using before you debate again. I am not saying that Islam has been refuted, I am saying that by your standards of reasoning it has been refuted.

Ok, even so I doubt it would be of benefit to you, but I’ll explain.

In your post # 2369 you said, “one source is not a "refutation". By that standard Islam has been refuted. I can find one expert that will say that Islam is a false religion. By your standards your religion is false.”

You imagined a scenario that you found the credible expert, shared the info about Islam with me, then I rejected it hence my imagined rejection of the info that you didn’t provide is your reason to conclude that my declaration about the MS is false!!! Do you even understand what you’re talking about?

Find the credible expert, share the info with me, find out whether I would accept the info or provide logical reasons to refute it and finally after you do all of that whatever my reaction is, it’s still totally irrelevant to my specific declaration about the Modern Synthesis being outdated theory in need of replacement. Your speculation of my reaction to your imagined argument about Islam has nothing to do with our discussion about the MS.