Evolution is illogical and non sense

[LuisDantas]

It is not a coincedence that 1, you accept evolution theory, and 2, you don't understand how subjectivity works.

You have been trying to convince people about "how subjectivity works" for months now. None of that makes any sense, frankly. So I don't see why you would expect me to care, much less agree with what you are saying.

I am entitled to just disregard what you say. As a matter of fact, I have no choice, since there is no sane alternative.

I hope you realize that. But I am not holding my breath.

It is sad in a way to see you waste so much energy.

Anybody who cannot see the pattern of atheists and social darwinists associated to evolution theory is not good at looking at the evidence.

Social darwinism is a misappropriation of the name "darwinism". It has no other relation either to Darwin's ideas nor to biological evolution.

Besides, you are just talking nonsense with no meaning.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You have been trying to convince people about "how subjectivity works" for months now. None of that makes any sense, frankly. So I don't see why you would expect me to care, much less agree with what you are saying.

I am entitled to just disregard what you say. As a matter of fact, I have no choice, since there is no sane alternative.

I hope you realize that. But I am not holding my breath.

It is sad in a way to see you waste so much energy.

Social darwinism is a misappropriation of the name "darwinism". It has no other relation either to Darwin's ideas nor to biological evolution.

Besides, you are just talking nonsense with no meaning.

All what you say is political manipulating whatever, no honesty.

Here we go again:

A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to a copy / model of what is evidenced.

For example, the moon and a book about the moon. The book is a copy of the moon to a world of words, pictures and mathematics.

An opinion is arrived at by choosing about what it is that chooses.

For example, someone can go left or right, chooses to go right. What was it that made the decision turn out the way it did? To answer that question I choose between cowardice and courage for instance, I choose courage, then my opinion is that courage is what made the decision turn out right.

So we can see that opinion (and belief and religious belief), requires knowledge about how things are chosen. And that a theory of origins which does not describe how things come to be in terms of how it was decided, does not provide accomodation for subjectivity. Any muslim (or christian) who accepts evolution theory, their religion is thus diminished.

And that Luis denies above explanation of opinion as nonsense and incomprehensible, just like every other evolutionist, provides more proof of the anti religion, anti subjectivity, attitudes common in the evolutionist movement.

 

[`mud]

Reality and rationality be damned,
so says the scriptures !
To the crucifix with thee !!
~
'mud

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Reality and rationality be damned,
so says the scriptures !
To the crucifix with thee !!
'mud

Beware, heretic, the Inquisition is here!

 

[LuisDantas]

All what you say is political manipulating whatever, no honesty.

Here we go again:

A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to a copy / model of what is evidenced.

For example, the moon and a book about the moon. The book is a copy of the moon to a world of words, pictures and mathematics.

An opinion is arrived at by choosing about what it is that chooses.

For example, someone can go left or right, chooses to go right. What was it that made the decision turn out the way it did? To answer that question I choose between cowardice and courage for instance, I choose courage, then my opinion is that courage is what made the decision turn out right.

So we can see that opinion (and belief and religious belief), requires knowledge about how things are chosen. And that a theory of origins which does not describe how things come to be in terms of how it was decided, does not provide accomodation for subjectivity. Any muslim (or christian) who accepts evolution theory, their religion is thus diminished.

And that Luis denies above explanation of opinion as nonsense and incomprehensible, just like every other evolutionist, provides more proof of the anti religion, anti subjectivity, attitudes common in the evolutionist movement.

I would be offended if I saw any sense in what you are saying. But such is not the case. I truly doubt anyone can even understand what you mean, so your attempts at attacking my character are just as meaningless.

Still... what a waste of effort.

 

[Valjean]

All what you say is political manipulating whatever, no honesty.

There's no politics. The ToE has been around for more than a century. It's universally accepted by scientists. What possible political agenda could it have?

A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to a copy / model of what is evidenced.
For example, the moon and a book about the moon. The book is a copy of the moon to a world of words, pictures and mathematics.

What does this mean? "Evidence forcing to a copy..." "The book is a copy of the moon."

An opinion is arrived at by choosing about what it is that chooses.

This is pure gobbledygook.

For example, someone can go left or right, chooses to go right. What was it that made the decision turn out the way it did? To answer that question I choose between cowardice and courage for instance, I choose courage, then my opinion is that courage is what made the decision turn out right.

-- What on Earth are you talking about?

So we can see that opinion (and belief and religious belief), requires knowledge about how things are chosen. And that a theory of origins which does not describe how things come to be in terms of how it was decided, does not provide accomodation for subjectivity. Any muslim (or christian) who accepts evolution theory, their religion is thus diminished.

And that Luis denies above explanation of opinion as nonsense and incomprehensible, just like every other evolutionist, provides more proof of the anti religion, anti subjectivity, attitudes common in the evolutionist movement.

Mohammad, this post makes no sense. We have no idea what you mean or even what you're talking about. You go on about "choice" and "choosing" and we have no idea what you mean by these. This has been explained to you repeatedly yet you make no effort to clarify.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I would be offended if I saw any sense in what you are saying. But such is not the case. I truly doubt anyone can even understand what you mean, so your attempts at attacking my character are just as meaningless.

Still... what a waste of effort.

All those well known atheists associated to evolution theory deny the common concept of free will like Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Susan Blackmore, Richard Dawkins, Joshua Greene, Jonathan Cohen, Derk Pereboom, Will Provine, William S. Robinson, PZ Myers.

And ofcourse on this forum Luis Dantas, Spiny Norman, etc. etc.

Daniel Dennett:
"I Could Not Have Done Otherwise--So What?"
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lorm... I could not have done otherwise--so what.pdf

Which means of course that is in fact true that evolution theory undermines all knowledge about how things are chosen, and leads to a total rejection of subjectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There's no politics. The ToE has been around for more than a century. It's universally accepted by scientists. What possible political agenda could it have?
What does this mean? "Evidence forcing to a copy..." "The book is a copy of the moon."

This is pure gobbledygook.

-- What on Earth are you talking about?

Mohammad, this post makes no sense. We have no idea what you mean or even what you're talking about. You go on about "choice" and "choosing" and we have no idea what you mean by these. This has been explained to you repeatedly yet you make no effort to clarify.

It is already clear for those who understand how choosing works. And that you don't understand how choosing works is because your mind is corrupted with evolution theory.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

He makes no effort to clarify that he may retain a sense of superiority.

A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to a copy / model of what is evidenced.

Close.
A fact is discovered by evidence relating to forming a "predictive model" of reality.

So we can see that opinion (and belief and religious belief), requires knowledge about how things are chosen. And that a theory of origins which does not describe how things come to be in terms of how it was decided, does not provide accomodation for subjectivity. Any muslim (or christian) who accepts evolution theory, their religion is thus diminished.

But evolution DOES provide knowledge about how "things are chosen"; though there is no conscious entity making that choice. It's called "selection of the species"; a species that has a survival advantage will continue to propagate; and those species that lack survival advantages (thus being unfit for their environment) will go extinct. In a simplistic view of the world, one could state that "nature chose them for extinction".

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

He makes no effort to clarify that he may retain a sense of superiority.

Close.
A fact is discovered by evidence relating to forming a "predictive model" of reality.



But evolution DOES provide knowledge about how "things are chosen"; though there is no conscious entity making that choice. It's called "selection of the species"; a species that has a survival advantage will continue to propagate; and those species that lack survival advantages (thus being unfit for their environment) will go extinct. In a simplistic view of the world, one could state that "nature chose them for extinction".

Requiring predictability, is ofcourse trying to exlcude the fact that the human being can go right or left.

Selection is a sorting mechanism. Typically the results of sorting is forced by the sorting criteria, and it cannot turn out any other way. So now you are advancing the idea that in choosing the result is forced, you are undermining the common concept of free will.

Neutral selection may be offered as exhibiting freedom. However usually this is explained in terms of statistics, and statistics is explained in terms of chaotic factors. So then there are chaotic sorting criteria, which force to a result, without any alternative possibility.

 

[Valjean]

It is already clear for those who understand how choosing works. And that you don't understand how choosing works is because your mind is corrupted with evolution theory.

SO EXPLAIN IT, ALREADY!
What the heck is this "choosing?" What do you mean by that? Define it. Explain it. You keep going on about it, and we keep telling you we don't know what you're talking about.
Are you insane? You keep saying the same thing. We keep telling you we don't understand, so
you repeat your same thing again.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

SO EXPLAIN IT, ALREADY!
What the heck is this "choosing?" What do you mean by that? Define it. Explain it. You keep going on about it, and we keep telling you we don't know what you're talking about.
Are you insane? You keep saying the same thing. We keep telling you we don't understand, so
you repeat your same thing again.

People who don't understand how choosing works just have an attitude problem. No amount of explanation is going to resolve that attitude problem.

I wonder when evolutionists come before a judge in a court of law on some issue, if they will still play ignorant about how choosing works, my guess is....they will....

 

[`mud]

I think it's the absence of rational comparisons of relatively related similarities.
Or maybe a subtle right/left/middle choosing of improper influences of propaganda.
Or maybe, just simply, without a doubt, pure bull crap !
~
'mud

 

[dust1n]

Why are we limited to speaking evolutionarily?

We aren't. But saying something is "higher order" within the context of evolutionary biology doesn't mean anything.

 

[dust1n]

I wonder when evolutionists come before a judge in a court of law on some issue, if they will still play ignorant about how choosing works, my guess is....they will....

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | NCSE

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine. (Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) 393 U.S. 97, 37 U.S. Law Week 4017, 89 S. Ct. 266, 21 L. Ed 228)
2. In 1981, in Segraves v. State of California, the court found that the California State Board of Education's Science Framework, as written and as qualified by its antidogmatism policy, gave sufficient accommodation to the views of Segraves, contrary to his contention that class discussion of evolution prohibited his and his children's free exercise of religion. The anti-dogmatism policy provided that class discussions of origins should emphasize that scientific explanations focus on "how", not "ultimate cause", and that any speculative statements concerning origins, both in texts and in classes, should be presented conditionally, not dogmatically. The court's ruling also directed the Board of Education to disseminate the policy, which in 1989 was expanded to cover all areas of science, not just those concerning evolution. (Segraves v. California (1981) Sacramento Superior Court #278978)
3. In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science". In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature. The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator. (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982) 529 F. Supp. 1255, 50 U.S. Law Week 2412)
4. In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act". This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science". The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion. In addition, the Court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught. (Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) 482 U.S. 578)
5. In 1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School District, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the First Amendment's establishment clause is not violated and that religious beliefs are not injected into the public school curriculum. The court upheld a district court finding that the school district had not violated Webster's free speech rights when it prohibited him from teaching "creation science", since it is a form of religious advocacy. (Webster v. New Lenox School District #122, 917 F. 2d 1004)
6. In 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes. Rejecting plaintiff Peloza's definition of a "religion" of "evolutionism", the Court found that the district had simply and appropriately required a science teacher to teach a scientific theory in biology class. (John E. Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, (1994) 37 F. 3rd 517)
7. In 1997, in Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution, ostensibly to promote "critical thinking". Noting that the policy singled out the theory of evolution for attention, that the only "concept" from which students were not to be "dissuaded" was "the Biblical concept of Creation", and that students were already encouraged to engage in critical thinking, the Court wrote that, "In mandating this disclaimer, the School Board is endorsing religion by disclaiming the teaching of evolution in such a manner as to convey the message that evolution is a religious viewpoint that runs counter to ... other religious views". Besides addressing disclaimer policies, the decision is noteworthy for recognizing that curriculum proposals for "intelligent design" are equivalent to proposals for teaching "creation science". (Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education, No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997). On August 13, 1999, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision; on June 19, 2000, the Supreme Court declined to hear the School Board's appeal, thus letting the lower court's decision stand.
8. In 2000, Minnesota State District Court Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case of Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al.(Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota [2000]). High school biology teacher LeVake had argued for his right to teach "evidence both for and against the theory" of evolution. The school district considered the content of what he was teaching and concluded that it did not match the curriculum, which required the teaching of evolution. Given the large amount of case law requiring a teacher to teach the employing district's curriculum, the judge declared that LeVake did not have a free speech right to override the curriculum, nor was the district guilty of religious discrimination.
9. In January 2005, in Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al., U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that a evolution warning label required in Cobb County textbooks violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The disclaimer stickers stated, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." After the district court's decision, the stickers were removed from Cobb’s textbooks. The school district, however, appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and in May 2006 the Appeals Court remanded the case to the district court for clarification of the evidentiary record. On December 19, 2006, the lawsuit reached a settlement; the Cobb County School District agreed not to disclaim or denigrate evolution either orally or in written form.
10. On December 20, 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. The ID policy included a statement in the science curriculum that "students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design." Teachers were also required to announce to their biology classes that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind". In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones wrote it was "abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause". Furthermore, Judge Jones ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community". This was the first challenge to the constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in the public school science classroom. (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688)

 

[Ouroboros]

A population's allele frequencies will remain constant (i.e. no evolution will occur) given the following assumptions: population size is infinite, all mating is random, no selection pressures are acting, mutation does not occur, there is no movement between populations. If any one or more of these assumptions is violated, as is always the case in nature, then evolution must occur.

Which can be checked with the Hardy-Weinberg equation. (And I know you know that already, just saying so people know that math can be used and applied in the theory as well.)

 

[jonathan180iq]

Explain this to me evolutionist...

We know who you are Josh Fuerestein, and we're not falling for it..

 

[Valjean]

So we can't understand "choosing" because we have an attitude problem, and it can't be explained to us because we have an attitude problem?
Why does this hopeless thread even continue?

 

[Ouroboros]

So we can't understand "choosing" because we have an attitude problem, and it can't be explained to us because we have an attitude problem?
Why does this hopeless thread even continue?

Well, you most definitely have a serious attitude problem there!

Just kiddin'!

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

As evidenced by my post and his response to my post, any attempt to even find common ground with Mohammud to even start a discussion with him will be dismissed and trying to have a discussion with him is utterly pointless.