Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Pogo]

Nothing written to you has made sense to you or impacted your knowledge base. It seems that you are still offering yourself as some kind of standard for evaluating ideas - that the ones that don't make sense to you aren't sensible.

What most of us do is explain to you why we don't recognize the Bible as authoritative by pointing to its internal contradictions, the moral errors of the god it describes, and errors of science and history.

You reminded me of the joke from Dorothy Parker regarding the Ayn Rand novel Atlas Shrugged: "This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force."

The theory predicts that such a transitional creature existed and that we may find fossil evidence of that fact someday, NOT that we will find such fossils or that we will find them by any specified date. Failure to have found tiktaalik would not disconfirm the theory. To think or imply otherwise is to commit an ignorantium fallacy.

And he is correct, assuming that we want accurate predictions. But you need to cite the prediction properly.

You think that that made the critical thinkers look like fools? The fool would be the man attempting to answer the question with unfalsifiable guesses, not the ones waiting for evidence before answering.

No, YOU defy science, and confusing the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution pretty much undermines your ethos (perceived credibility or character). It's pretty much a litmus test for credibility the same way that confusing a scientific theory and a hunch instantly disqualifies one ("Evolution is only a theory"). Or, "I'm not an ape" or "I'm not an animal." One needn't give any further scientific opinions after than one.

And don't think I'm not grateful for being educationed.

None know that. Some may believe or assert that, but they're guessing.

Dorothy Parker for the win again!

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

If the claims by theists were true they would be able to demonstrate the truth in ways that ae indisputable. But believers don't even bring enough evidence that demonstrate their beliefs are plausible. The Bible is irrelevant as explaining what is true about reality.

It’s not hard to find truth in religion.

 

[F1fan]

It’s not hard to find truth in religion.

And some find that the truth is something that not only lacks evidence, but is contrary to what we know.

The question that follows your comment is: why is it so easy for so many humans to adopt ideas as truth that aren't true?

 

[Pogo]

It’s not hard to find truth in religion.

Or magic.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

And some find that the truth is something that not only lacks evidence, but is contrary to what we know.

The question that follows your comment is: why is it so easy for so many humans to adopt ideas as truth that aren't true?

Your western culture may define truth differently.

Historically, that has been the case.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Or magic.

Of course!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The fact is that I cannot say if the theory of evolution is totally wrong. But the fact that it can be is an interesting thought in itself.

That's what makes it "science." It is falsifiable, but hasn't been falsified.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ray exposed those guys in the first 5 minutes. He blew them out of the water, with the first question. He asked if everything came from noting and they had no answer. End of argument, Ray made them look like absolute fools straight of the bat. So you shot yourself in the foot right there, I couldn't stand listening to any more rubbish from those two clowns

Again, "everything from nothing" has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution, which can only occur once life already exists. The two guys in the video did not claim anywhere that everything comes from nothing. Evolution makes no such claim either.

So, no, Ray didn't expose anything other than his own ignorance. The guy doesn't understand anything about evolution. Seriously, watch the video I provided and you'll see. Maybe you'll learn something as well.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, you can't justify the professor. He was simply exposed by a 17 year old kid and he hated me for it. Don't you think that he would have made a fool of me in front of the class if he could, instead of allowing me to put him to shame

Oops, it sounds like you didn't even read what I wrote. You certainly didn't respond to it.

Let's try this again:

"The Professor was probably baffled as to why you were taking a class on biological evolution but you were expecting to get answers about cosmogony and abiogenesis. You took the wrong class, guy.

What are you going to tell us next, that you took a class on electrical engineering and were baffled as to why the Professor couldn't answer your questions about medicine?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

You don't even know what the ToE claims, so how about you go and find out the basics and then you may be able to contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way, rather than just empty words

Wow, congrats on the epic levels of projection in this post.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Rubbish, many biologist know that God created everything, it's only those blind ones who follow fools that claim that everything came from nothing they're the laughing stock of the world

Cool, then it should be super easy to present one of their scientific papers demonstrating that god created everything.
Can't wait to read it.

 

[Pogo]

OK, would you love me more if I was a short fat man with a baldly head and hairy back, living in his mother basement and wearing a tin foil hat. But being a handsome white man, I get a lot of haters because they all wish they could be like me

Nah, but you could try a 34 D.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, would you love me more if I was a short fat man with a baldly head and hairy back, living in his mother basement and wearing a tin foil hat. But being a handsome white man, I get a lot of haters because they all wish they could be like me

At least that would be more accurate.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's what makes it "science." It is falsifiable, but hasn't been falsified.

There is absolutely nothing beyond presumption and hypotheses that verify the idea that some type (species, perhaps?) of fish evolved to Tiktaalok.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is absolutely nothing beyond presumption and hypotheses that verify the idea that some type (species, perhaps?) of fish evolved to Tiktaalok.

Well, in the strong sense that is so of everything including that you and I exist.
So in practice some of us assume that universe is real and orderly.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, in the strong sense that is so of everything including that you and I exist.

I don't think so. Although I know we have different thoughts about existence and the presence of God. Be that as it may -- have a nice day.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think so. Although I know we have different thoughts about existence and the presence of God. Be that as it may -- have a nice day.

Yeah, you are truly God, because you think existence into existence. Who would have know that you are God?!!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is absolutely nothing beyond presumption and hypotheses that verify the idea that some type (species, perhaps?) of fish evolved to Tiktaalok.

It there a reason you are not chairing a sciences department in a major university? I mean, you seem to know so very much! Surely they're all knocking at your door looking for your wisdom.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is absolutely nothing beyond presumption and hypotheses that verify the idea that some type (species, perhaps?) of fish evolved to Tiktaalok.

Okay. Prove it. Or were you just breaking the Ninth Commandment again?

When you make claims like this you have taken on the burden of proof.

 

[Pogo]

There is absolutely nothing beyond presumption and hypotheses that verify the idea that some type (species, perhaps?) of fish evolved to Tiktaalok.

On the contrary, there is a robust theory that explains all of the fossils that have been found that date before and after Tiktaalik. The hypothesis that is relevant was that a fossil with traits similar to Tiktaalik could found in strata of the appropriate age. It was investigated and lo and behold it was fount and the hypothesis confirmed.

On the other hand, we have your presumption that none of this is true based only on your refusal to actually engage in the subject.
Denial of reality is not a pretty intellectual trait and could certainly be considered violation of the commandment not to bear false witness.