Irony of the evolutionary belief

[YoursTrue]

You have been offered numerous times the chance to be taught about evolution.
the problem is that you are not wanting to learn about evolution.
You are much more interested in trying to poke holes in evolution.
So much so you ask questions the the best most honest answer to is "WTF are you talking about?"

You mean you provide statements from believers and you have nothing beyond that. And therefore, cannot and won't teach. thank you. OK, actually,I haven't noticed youas presenting any evidence much at all, only put-downs and rah-rahs for some.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, of course. I still can't discern why you post sentences like these.

I can. Because they make sense. And the sad part is that you don't understand it. Or rather, I should say, your mind prevents you from understanding it.

 

[leroy]

Your example revolves around that having a dog doesn't cause you to the effect of buying dog food. Correct.
Now check cause and effect in the other example.
Start by find the text again and then check the cause and effect between the 3 time periods and what the TOE predicts.

I have no idea on what you are talking about……….cause and effect?.........and I wont look through old post.

 

[leroy]

This is beyond the agree..disagree spectrum,

Not even wrong - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Once again you where cornered and once again you are just hand waving

Why not simply admitting that you where wrong?.........

 

[leroy]

No, it doesn't.

The conclusion ASSUMES something not in evidence, something that is actually not true, which that the tiktaalik fossil is the ONLY line of evidence. When the conclusion is based on an assumption that is false (or at least not in evidence), that means the conclusion doesn't follow, that the logic is flawed.

You are obviously not following the conversation..........nobody is making that assumption


all you have to do is
1 Agree with me on that “if evolution is true, we would expect to *probably* find fossils like tiktaalik” (this would be a prediccion)

2 Agree with me on that evolution would still be true even if we wouldn’t find that fossils


if you grant 1 and 2 you would agree with me and disagree with all the fanatic atheist from this forum.

 

[leroy]

You just refuted your Tiktaalik argument.

Aja, and according to you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what was my argument, and how was it refuted?-…………… just joking, I know you that you are making this up

 

[leroy]

Yes, of course. I still can't discern why you post sentences like these.

Because many useres disagree

And I don't know what you mean by invalid here.

A valid prediction would be a prediction that supports a theory or model this is what I mean (nothing controversial)

My point is that a prediction could be valid even if it doesn’t follow logically

You buying dog food doesn’t follow logically from the hypothesis “you have a dog”………. But certainly that prediction (if true) would support the hypothesis

And I think you're still conflating logically possible and logically follows.

Logical possibility and logically follows are related in that if a prediction logically follows from a theory……… they it is not logically possible for the theory to be correct if the prediction is wrong.

What would help me is if you could write a simple sentence or two that you think others would disagree with, but you want to argue is actually correct (or vice versa), and which motivates you to pursue this line of questioning. And it should be the most general statement that you consider correct yet controversial. Write a sentence that you believe correct that you think others interacting with you here would disagree with that accounts for why you are discussing this topic.

Sure I would claim

The claim (in the context of science) “predictions must follow logically” form the hypothesis / theory / model is false.

I would say that predictions could be valid even if they don’t follow logically…….. for example from the fact that you have a dog (hypothesis) it doesn’t follow logically that you would buy dog food…… but that would still be a valid prediction.



Many members explicitly disagree with that claim

Let's debate that. If this were a formal debate, we would begin with a resolution. Please do that. Here are examples from the Fulton Prize debates of the past few years:

2023—“Resolved: The U.S. Federal Government should enact an economy-wide carbon tax.”

2022—“Resolved: The U.S. Supreme Court should overrule the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Shurtleff v. City of Boston by holding that the City of Boston’s third flagpole available for raising private flags is not government speech.”

2021—“Resolved: The United States should restrict the activation of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty with the Republic of the Philippines to an armed attack on the territories, islands, and armed forces under the administrative control of the Philippines.”

2020—“Resolved: The United States should adopt a constitutional amendment to require term limits for justices of the Supreme Court.”

ok
Prediction must follow logically from the theory hypothesis/theory/model

I say NO

 

[leroy]

Oh the ongoing irony coming from a member that routinely gets science wrong.

But you still haven’t been capable of quoting an example of me getting something wrong from science.


Where is your list of my mistakes?


@McBell is waiting for it.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

All you should do is accept what experts conclude.

What intellectual position do you have that questions the results? None. You have religious bias. I find it odd that despite all these discussions that creationists refuse to acknowledge what their minds are doing that is faulty. It’s like what a robot would do.

No curiosity. No interest in learning.

Nanobot (Havana Parody) | A Capella Science ft. Dorothy Andrusiak​

 

[leroy]

All you should do is accept what experts conclude.

I have shown you what experts say on various topics ………….and you reject them……… so please do not apply an standard that you are not going to respect

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You are obviously not following the conversation..........nobody is making that assumption

YOUR POST made that assumption. remember your three points? The ONLY way the conclusions would be warranted is if you ASSUMED that the fossil was the only proof of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aja, and according to you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what was my argument, and how was it refuted?-…………… just joking, I know you that you are making this up

Oh my! You already forgot it. You know that you do not get anything for free when you make demands. Admit that your forgot and I will go back and quote your argument.

 

[leroy]

YOUR POST made that assumption. remember your three points? The ONLY way the conclusions would be warranted is if you ASSUMED that the fossil was the only proof of evolution.

But I don’t grant the conclusión………….my point is that the conclusion is false (because premise 1 is false)

 

[leroy]

Oh my! You already forgot it. You know that you do not get anything for free when you make demands. Admit that your forgot and I will go back and quote your argument.

We´ve been there before…………. I have acted according to your demands before, and you always find an excuse for not supporting your claims

 

[Subduction Zone]

We´ve been there before…………. I have acted according to your demands before, and you always find an excuse for not supporting your claims

No, you never have. You have always weaseled your way out of doing what you were supposed to do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But I don’t grant the conclusión………….my point is that the conclusion is false (because premise 1 is false)

Yeah, he does not grant the conclusion. He only makes poor self refuting arguments.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But I don’t grant the conclusión………….my point is that the conclusion is false (because premise 1 is false)

And I showed you that this was mistaken. The conclusion was wrong not because either point 1 or point 2 was wrong, but because the reasoning was fallacious.

In order for the conclusion to be correct, there must be ANOTHER point, an assumption that the fossil is the ONLY line of evidence for evolution.

I feel like I'm just repeating myself to you. If you still don't understand my point, OH WELL. If you want to reply it's fine, but I won't be responding further.

 

[YoursTrue]

On the contrary, there is a robust theory that explains all of the fossils that have been found that date before and after Tiktaalik.

Please provide links at least to what you are saying.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, he does not grant the conclusion. He only makes poor self refuting arguments.

Not at all. You're wrong, and if you think I am wrong, provide backup for your claims, please. Thanks!

 

[YoursTrue]

And I showed you that this was mistaken. The conclusion was wrong not because either point 1 or point 2 was wrong, but because the reasoning was fallacious.

In order for the conclusion to be correct, there must be ANOTHER point, an assumption that the fossil is the ONLY line of evidence for evolution.

I feel like I'm just repeating myself to you. If you still don't understand my point, OH WELL. If you want to reply it's fine, but I won't be responding further.

In other words, no answer...because the "experts" are right, just as the doctors thought they were during Dr. Semmelweis's time. And people believed them because they were the "experts."