Irony of the evolutionary belief

[TagliatelliMonster]

Awesome………….. so please prove that it is a fact that our ability to reflect upon deep philosophical stuff evolved by Natural Selection.

I won ‘accept you bare assertions (provide a source)

And I won’t accept testimonies as evidence (just kidding on this one)…….obviously I would accept the testimony of a scientist in a peer reviewed publication

You are again moving the goalpost.

The point was that our intellectual and mental capacities (complex brain) were beneficial for our survival.
And it's baffling that you need to have this explained to you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes almost everything you know form science comes from testimonies………..testimonies is nearly all you have.

No.

Scientific papers describe evidence which can be independently verified.
You don't seem to understand how that is different from testimony like "I saw a monster yesterday"

For example You *know* that probably there is a chromosomal fusion in the human genome because you read a paper (or a book, or an article or a youtube video) and you simply trust in the testimony of the author of that source.

No. I trust in the findings of thousands upon thousands, millions actually, of independent genomic sequences of DNA.
The alternative would be a gigantic conspiracy among all geneticists the likes of which the world has never seen before.

Next to that, I have the option to study up on genetics myself and double check it for myself.

You do not understand the difference between that and "I saw a monster yesterday"?

I'm so sorry for you if you don't.


I'm skipping the rest because all of it is the same kind of nonsense as the above.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Make an honest effort and try to understand my point, I promise it is not so hard.

Nobody is questioning the validity of the scientific method; my only point is that YOU PERSONALLY in most of the cases can only know something about science, because you trust in the testimonies of others. You trust in the testimonies of the authors of the papers (books, articles ...), and trust that they really did made the experiments and really got the results they claim they got.

Which is ok, there is nothing wrong with trusting in a testimony, especially if this testimony comes from a well-informed person whose peers can confirm it.

The mistake is to say that testimonies are not evidence (because at least sometimes they clearly are)

Again, learn the difference.

Here's how it goes in science, which you are calling a "testimony":

When you do X and Y, then Z happens. And here's exactly how this is done, described in such a way that you can repeat it independently of my observations / opinion, so you don't have to take my word for it.


That in contrast with actual mere "testimony":

I saw a monster yesterday. You just got to believe me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You think that your GPS Works according to the math of the General Theory of Relativity , because someone told you ………… you haven’t verified it yourself.

So yes you do trust in testimonies as evidence (which is ok)

No. I know for a fact that the internal clocks of GPS sattelites need to be calibrated to accomodate for relativistic effects for the system to work.

In tech, there is no "you just have to believe me".

Companies are not going to build billion dollar machines based on "you just got to believe me" and unreproducible results.

You are being incredibly ridiculous here. And your only reason to be this ridiculous is to try and drag science down to the level of mere "you just got to believe me" to make your religious claims sound more credible. It's hilariously sad.

Like I said: a new low, even for you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Really, should I take you testimony as evidence that you are a father?.............. by your logic there is no evidence that you are a father because all I have is your testimony ……..even if you do a DNA test, you would still only have the testimony of the people that work in the laboratory

I love how your "defense" here comes down to claiming that objectively verifiable evidence simply doesn't exist.

It's a new low to try and defend bare assertions that have no evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No disagreement; That is very interesting, but that doesn’t contradict any of my comments .

All I am saying is that at least sometimes, testimonies are evidence, for example the testimony of the author of a peer reviewed article counts as evidence..........

No. Scientific papers aren't "testimony".
They are detailed descriptions of data, described in such a way that anyone can reproduce them which makes them independently verifiable.

This is what distinguishes a scientific paper from a mere sheet of paper on which someone writes down "I saw a monster last night, you just got to believe me".

this is not suppose to be controvertial, nor complex, nor fishy

It's a false equivocation at best and a deliberate attempt at being intellectually dishonest at worst, is what it actually is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nobody is comparing apples and oranges ether support your accusation (quote my comments where is did it)

You are the one's who's comparing apples and oranges.
In fact, it's even worse. It's like comparing plastic apples with organic oranges.

Your little silly word game here is clear for all.
You are trying to pretend as if a scientific paper is somehow the equivalent of someone writing on a piece of paper "I saw bigfoot" by calling both "testimony".

It's beyond retarded.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Scientific papers are not just testmonies ....... but YOU only have access to the testimonies ...

False.

The stuff described in such papers is always independently verifiable / reproducible.
The fact that doing that is hard work most of the time, does not change that.

This is not the same as "I saw a monster yesterday, you got to believe me"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not all testimonies are the same , each testimony falls or stands as evidence by its merits .

Here's where you expose your mistake (or dishonesty...).

The "merits" = the actual evidence.

It's not the "testimony" (= the writing) that is the evidence. It's the data the writing describes.

Derp di derp derp.

"I saw a monster" is not evidence. It's a claim. Providing that monster, its feces, its footprints, its DNA, ... for others to independently verify would be evidence of said monster.

The mere words of "I saw the monster" is not evidence. It's a claim that requires evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wow, you are wrong in so many things and at some many levels that I don’t even know where to start .

I´l simply start with the most obvios mistake……………..but pay attention this is not supposed to be controversial, there are no hidden tramps nor semantic tricks……….. you are supposed to accept my next comment without any hesitation.

Yes almost everything you know form science comes from testimonies………..testimonies is nearly all you have.

For example You *know* that probably there is a chromosomal fusion in the human genome because you read a paper (or a book, or an article or a youtube video) and you simply trust in the testimony of the author of that source.

You haven’t done the experiments yourself, all you have is their testimony…………… so by your standards you don’t have evidence for the chromosome fusion in the human genome because according to you testimonies are not evidence.



Well obviously some testimonies are more reliable than others, (some testimonies represent better evidence than others)

Obviously the testimony of a scientists on a claim related to his area of expertise and who has confirmation form the testimonies of his peers …… is much more valuable than the testimony of a crazy guy who claims that was kidnapped by allliens.

But Both are testimonies and by your standards none count as evidence.

The point is that the vast , vast , vast majority of scientific knowledge comes from testimonies, you simply trust the testimonies of these who made the experiments. (which is ok)

The conclusion is not “therefore science fails” the conclusion is “therefore your own standards fail”

All you have to do is acknowledge your mistake, and simply admit that testimonies (at least sometimes) count as evidence. Once you admit this obvious simple and uncontroversial fact I will proceed in correcting your other mistakes

All you've done here is just repeat the same refuted claims over again.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

All you've done here is just repeat the same refuted claims over again.

Leroy's one of several creationists that gets beaten up by the scientifically literate when he makes his creationist arguments and whose net effect is to reassure those people that they made a good choice rejecting a literalist view of scripture and zealous religion.

He is also one of many creationists who refuses to answer questions about why he does this and what he hopes to accomplish. I still don't what that is for certain, but the refusal of every one of them to answer is surely a clue. Why do they feel that they can neither tell the truth nor lie? And why do they not care that their apologetics are counterproductive with scientifically literate critical thinkers.

He's also one that won't tell you why he is pressing a point even when asked as has occurred in this thread. He sems to think that if he keeps his agenda secret, he will be more effective, so he'll NEVER tell you where he's going with his questions and claims, although it certainly is borne of the belief that the Bible is right and therefore science wrong.

But these are the things that make such people so interesting for me. I can't make sense of it. I understand holding beliefs about a harshly judgmental and punitive deity and about the inerrancy of scripture. That's basic faith-based thought. But why the secrecy about what motivates them and what their purpose is? That's inexplicable to me unless it's some sense of martyring oneself for an audience of one that reads minds, punishes thought crimes and rewards (figurative) self-flagellation.

If that were my belief, I probably wouldn't answer, either. I wouldn't allow myself to think about it for fear of the consequences.

But that still doesn't explain why they don't give some explanation that they think will please their god unless it's that they think they'll be punished for lying. Why not say, "I'm here to teach why the Bible is correct and science is wrong" or "I believe that this is what my god wants me to be doing"? It must be because they don't really believe that and consider it dangerous to think or write what they are up to.

 

[Tomef]

All you've done here is just repeat the same refuted claims over again.

How many threads like this could you just copy and paste that too? Could automate it I suppose. Some day soon there’ll be bull**** response bots I should think.

 

[leroy]

You're not being honest here. This comment was dishonest: "All I am saying is that at least sometimes testimonies count as evidence." If that were all you're saying, then you'd be done. Nobody is contesting that comment

Yes that is all what I am saying, some testimonies count as good conclusive evidence, some don’t.

I can speculate as to what you're concealing - what the words would say if you were honest about your purpose for that line of discussion about testimony. Something that translates to science is not reliable, or that scripture is, or science is founded in nothing more than religion is - some false equivalency between the two. But you have no intention of being honest in that way.

I told you what my hidden agenda is

If you grant that at least some testimonies are evidence, then you can no longer repeat the meme of “that is not evidence, those are just testimonies”

But rather you would have to show and justify that those particular testimonies are not evidence

 

[leroy]

Leroy's one of several creationists that gets beaten up by the scientifically literate when he makes his creationist arguments

Can you quote a single claim made by me, that has been batten by scientific literature?= NO, you are just dishonestly making things up

He is also one of many creationists who refuses to answer questions about why he does this and what he hopes to accomplish.

Ask me any question,

He's also one that won't tell you why he is pressing a point even when asked as has occurred in this thread. He sems to think that if he keeps his agenda secret, he will be more effective, so he'll NEVER tell you where he's going with his questions and claims, although it certainly is borne of the belief that the Bible is right and therefore science wrong.

I don’t have a secret agenda, but even if I did, that shouldn’t be relevant…………..you should grant that atleast some testimonies are evidence because the statement is true……………….weather if I have a secret agenda or not shouldn’t be relevant

But these are the things that make such people so interesting for me. I can't make sense of it. I understand holding beliefs about a harshly judgmental and punitive deity and about the inerrancy of scripture.

I haven made any claims on the inherency of scripture

 

[Pogo]

Yes that is all what I am saying, some testimonies count as good conclusive evidence, some don’t.



I told you what my hidden agenda is

If you grant that at least some testimonies are evidence, then you can no longer repeat the meme of “that is not evidence, those are just testimonies”

But rather you would have to show and justify that those particular testimonies are not evidence

Which is why you were informed that testimony is not an appropriate word to use in discussions like this because it equivocates unevidenced statements with information that can be confirmed by the consumer. It generates a false equivalency.
If you wish to be respected and your ideas not dismissed, then don't use the wrong words.

 

[leroy]

You are again moving the goalpost.

The point was that our intellectual and mental capacities (complex brain) were beneficial for our survival.
And it's baffling that you need to have this explained to you.

No disagreement. I grant that intelligence could have selective benefits.

What I am claiming is that our ability to reflect upon deep philosophical stuff seems require an extra layer of complexity in our brain, and it seems that this layer has no selective benefit

@It Aint Necessarily this reply is also for you because you made a similar strawman

 

[leroy]

You do not understand the difference between that and "I saw a monster yesterday"?

That in contrast with actual mere "testimony":

That is a strawman, I never said that all testimonies are equal nor that testimonies such as “I saw a monster yesterday” are equivalent to the testimony of a scientists who publish his findings in a journal

All I said is that at least sometimes testimonies count as evidence. (I didn’t even used the phrase “mere testimonies”

You are putting words in my mounth



For example I am accepting your testimony as evidence that you are a father …….. Do you think I shouldn’t accept your testimony? Am I being irrational?

 

[leroy]

Which is why you were informed that testimony is not an appropriate word to use in discussions like this because it equivocates unevidenced statements with information that can be confirmed by the consumer. It generates a false equivalency.
If you wish to be respected and your ideas not dismissed, then don't use the wrong words.

Unless you can show that the typical definition of “testimony” is “unsupported claims” in the English language …. I have no reason to think that I am mistked……………. Or should I simply trust in your testimony and assume that I am wrong just because you say so?



For example @TagliatelliMonster claims that he is a father, do you accept his testimony as evidence?

if yes, then we both agree sometimes testimonies are evidnece,

if not, why not?

I am aware of the fact that his testimony might not be absolute undeniable evidence………. But if I were to bet, I bet that he really is a father simply because I trust in his testimony.

And don’t worry, there are no tramps, from accepting this particular testimony as evidence it doesn’t follow that you have to accept all testimonies as evidenced

 

[Pogo]

No disagreement. I grant that intelligence could have selective benefits.

What I am claiming is that our ability to reflect upon deep philosophical stuff seems require an extra layer of complexity in our brain, and it seems that this layer has no selective benefit

@It Aint Necessarily this reply is also for you because you made a similar strawman

Well if you are admitting religious belief is ultimately not beneficial, I agree.

 

[leroy]

Well if you are admitting religious belief is ultimately not beneficial, I agree.

Ok, then why did the “religious instinct” evolve if it has not benefit?........... (I don’t know is a valid answer, by the way)