• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Disproof of Darwinism

ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
Darwinism has no probability calculation. Thus, it is not a theory.
Click to expand...
Sure it does, thus it is.

The 7 1/2 billion humans on earth are the result of evolution.
Probability states that some of these 7 1/2 billion people will reject science.
Probability states that some of these 7 1/2 billion people will remain willfully, woefully ignorant their entire lives.
 
Jimmy

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
It Aint Necessarily So said:
You said that you would disprove (prove incorrect) Darwin's theory. You didn't.Why? Because proof is that which convinces that an idea is correct or incorrect by eliminating the possibility of other previously logically possible scenarios now excluded. Consider a suspect telling the police that he is innocent of a crime. At that moment, two possibilities exist - guilty or not. Suppose an alibi is offered that confirms that the suspect had no opportunity to commit the crime. If the alibi is confirmed, the alibi is proof of innocence. Two logical possibilities have been winnowed down to two.

You've done nothing like that. The fact that you have convinced nobody if the proof that you proved nothing to anybody.

I like to use the analogy of a stand-up comedian who claims that he was hilarious on stage when nobody laughed. If people behave as if or tell you that you weren't funny, you weren't funny to those people. You have to make them laugh or smile.

Similarly, if you claim that you proved something to an audience where nobody was convinced, you're wrong.



What you have demonstrated, unless you are lying about your stated opinions and don't really hold them, is that like almost every creationist that has come before you (and every one without exception in my experience on religious forums), is that you don't know the science you criticize. You don't know what a scientific theory is, you have a bizarre outlook on the need to quantify for science to be legitimate or a theory to be a theory, and that you don't know what the theory of evolution says. In fact, if a monkey gave birth to a human being, it would falsify the theory, which predicts that that never happens.



No, there's almost no chance that the theory is incorrect. Suppose that the theory were falsified tomorrow after a monkey gave birth to a human being with no human technical or genetic intervention. The theory has to tossed out. But here's the creationist's problem: all of those mountains of data that preceded the falsification don't go away. They need to be reinterpreted in light of the totality of evidence, which now rules the theory out. What's left?

Only intelligent design by a deceptive intelligence with the power to seed the earth with so many false clues intended to mislead us. Consider just the geological column with its deeper and more superficial strata, with the deepest forms being further from modern forms morphologically, and having radionuclide ratios that were put there to make it seem that they were older than the more superficial forms.

Does that describe your god - a trickster? Sounds more like Loki. I'd say that the Christian god - the god that loves you, is sinless, is perfectly good and moral, and who expects you to believe him that he made the world and the life forms on it and worship and obey him because of it - has already been ruled out.

Incidentally, this intelligence need not be supernatural (a god), so even falsification of the theory doesn't prove a god, since an alternative logical possibility exists - very powerful extraterrestrials who came to exist naturalistically through abiogenesis on a remote location followed by biological and then cultural evolution. Whatever you consider the likelihood of this being the case is the difference between certainty and the likelihood that the theory is correct - much less than 1% in my estimation.

The theory is probably correct. Christian creationism is definitely in error.
Click to expand...
So if an activity has less than 1% chance of me being killed should I do it? It probably would depend on how many test subjects there were? How many test subjects does Darwinism have?
 
Altfish

Altfish

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
Thus, the humans are chimps, the humans are monkeys, the humans are apes?! From it follows, that chimps are monkeys, monkeys are apes, and chimps are apes. Are there species in Darwinism?
Click to expand...
Well some of that is correct, humans are an ape.
Why does that worry you? Get over it. We are NOT special, the advantage we have over other animals is our brain size; we are not very good at flying or swimming or climbing tees or running fast, etc, etc.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
questfortruth said:
Thus, the humans are chimps, the humans are monkeys, the humans are apes?! From it follows, that chimps are monkeys, monkeys are apes, and chimps are apes. Are there species in Darwinism?
Click to expand...
You really don't know what you're talking about, if you don't know that Darwin's first book was titled "On the Origin of Species".

Speciation was the question he set to try and answer.
Tom
 
Altfish

Altfish

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
It is illogical if reality, including Science, has no sense. If life has no meaning or sense, then "Theory of Evolution" has no sense or meaning. Nothing has sense and meaning then.
Click to expand...
Why??? You have changed your language, science makes lots of sense.
The ToE explains what happens on this planet with living things.

Anyway, what do you mean by "Sense"?
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
Thus, the humans are chimps, the humans are monkeys, the humans are apes?! From it follows, that chimps are monkeys, monkeys are apes, and chimps are apes. Are there species in Darwinism?
Click to expand...

You probably know that there are vehicles. You probably know that some vehicles are cars. You probably know that some cars are Fords. You probably know that some cars are Chevrolets.

Yet, somehow, you get confused about humans and monkeys and apes.



Some people have different educations than others.

Hey, boy, yasee that big ol' red car there? that's a ford. next to it is a chev-ro-lay. dems both cars - but real folk drive trucks - pickup trucks. that's enuff edicatin for now - go get me another beer.​
 
Altfish

Altfish

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
Are humans fishes too? If yes, then apes are fish?
Click to expand...
If you go back far enough, yes ....can I recommend you read this book ...

518Ll-W1mcL.jpg


https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B002RI9392/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
 
Q

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
questfortruth said:
Darwinism (in Natural Theology, but in science: "Theory of Evolution")
is not a real theory, because the talks about random mutations rely heavily on luck.

Anything, that needs luck is not a law of nature; because the law is the receipt, which for given circumstances gives the calculated result. Darwinism has no probability calculation. Thus, it is not a theory. How many chimps have become humans in 2020? Is it more than in 2019?


State A: the world of animals,
State B: humankind.
How probable is the transition from A to B?


Is there any transitions in Darwinism? If no, then it is not EVOLUTION.

Darwinism uses luck to create new information, that violates the natural laws: due to holding of laws, no new information can be added.
Click to expand...

Questfortruth had provided us with yet ANOTHER perfect example of how people who refuse to actually study the theory of evolution can get the basic concepts of the theory so completely wrong. Note that he thinks that 'luck' is a factor in evolution and that homo sapiens are NOT a part of the animal kingdom. He makes such ridiculous claims even though he has been informed again and again that there are 6 kingdoms in biology, they are plants, animals, bacteria, archabacteria, funji, and protozoa. He INSISTS that humans are NOT part of the animal kingdom, but refuses to tell us which of the 6 kingdoms he thinks we ARE a part of.

The lesson here folks is that actual education is preferable to self-imposed ignorance every time.
 
Secret Chief

Secret Chief

Veteran Member
So a luck theory is atheist fish science, which proves random monkey meaning is not an animal kingdom god that never transitions by bananas. Give me your drugs.

I could get to like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top