Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[Desert Snake]

The Op does a really bad job addressing Creationism.
Unless you are merely showing the ridiculousness of Creation "arguments".

It's actually difficult to present a poor argument for creationism; there's really no logical alternative. I like fiction, so I do like to theorize, but let's get real, non-creationism isn't tenable with the current evidence available.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure. When you offer something, I'll be happy to.

You are a wicked wicked man.

 

[McBell]

Oh a few things are in the op, you just didn't notice them, apparently.

You have been repeatedly asked to clarify, support, and expand on your fallacious OP.
Thus far you have failed to do so.

Rather difficult to take you seriously at this point.

 

[McBell]

... non-creationism isn't tenable with the current evidence available.

Bold empty claim.

Nice try though.

 

[Revoltingest]

You have been repeatedly asked to clarify, support, and expand on your fallacious OP.
Thus far you have failed to do so.

To be fallacious would require a factual error.
Again, I must invoke Wolfgang Pauli (translated quote).....
"That's not only not right...it's not even wrong!"

I like Mr Pauli.
Although he was a physicist, he'd have been as successful an insult comic as Don Rickles.

 

[Desert Snake]

I did. I've also written hundreds of posts on this including two recent threads I've started, and you've reduced issues addressed in theoretical physics, cosmology, philosophy, theology, causality, epistemology, probability, and more to the equivalent of "x exists, ergo creationism", insulting and demeaning real anti-creationist arguments even more than failing to address creationist arguments.

I'm not demeaning anti-creationist arguments. This isn't about demeaning things, it's about presenting coherent arguments. I'm not going to pretend however that probability only works with certain theories, etc. Anyways, you didn't have to comment on the op

 

[Desert Snake]

Bold empty claim.

Nice try though.

Either way, everything just poofed into existence, lol, at some point. I'm not sure how my claim is false but yours isn't.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm not demeaning anti-creationist arguments. This isn't about demeaning things

I didn't say you meant to demean them. I'm saying that your argument does merely because it betrays an ignorance of both anti-creationist arguments as well as both theistic and atheistic intellectual traditions.

it's about presenting coherent arguments.

No, it's about pretending by implicit claims that your ridiculous flamingo nonsense can be equated with the positions you deride, contrary to even those who (unlike you) present good reasons that they should be dismissed.

Anyways, you didn't have to write anything on my thread

Your thread didn't warrant anything other than what I wrote.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are a wicked wicked man.

Far worse, I'm afraid.

 

[Desert Snake]

I didn't say you meant to demean them. I'm saying that your argument does merely because it betrays an ignorance of both anti-creationist arguments as well as both theistic and atheistic intellectual traditions.


No, it's about pretending by implicit claims that your ridiculous flamingo nonsense can be equated with the positions you deride, contrary to even those who (unlike you) present good reasons that they should be dismissed.


Your thread didn't warrant anything other than what I wrote.

Lol, well, I know your position ''opinion'', on things, now. At least that's a plus. You however are incorrect. A simple op like the one I presented, does not betray ignorance of the arguments, it's a type or set of argumentation style. The op isn't ''bad'', you didn't understand the format.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Lol, well, I know your position ''opinion'', on things, now.

I seriously doubt it. That would require a familiarity with subjects you don't seem to be aware of, let alone familiar with.

A simple op like the one I presented

...is simplistic. Not illuminating, not useful, not important, and not worthwhile. It's the equivalent of "the chances that evolutionary processes would result in us are almost impossible, therefore god" (i.e., worthless).

The op isn't ''bad'', you didn't understand the format.

What do you know of what I know?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's the equivalent of "the chances that evolutionary processes would result in us are almost impossible, therefore god" (i.e., worthless).

I so often see the probability argument raised, but it's almost never accompanied by actual calculations.
On the rare occasion where it is quantified (even if only by order of magnitude approximations), I've
found the assumed premises to be convenient & too limited.

I don't know much, but I can spot very basic errors.
(I once caught one in a Scientific American article about genetics.)
There should be a license requirement for presenting a probability based argument.

 

[Desert Snake]

I seriously doubt it. That would require a familiarity with subjects you don't seem to be aware of, let alone familiar with.

Not really. That's not how it works. Subjects overlap but only to the extent that the variables don't goof up the process. There are ''good'' theories that are wrong etc

...is simplistic. Not illuminating, not useful, not important, and not worthwhile. It's the equivalent of "the chances that evolutionary processes would result in us are almost impossible, therefore god" (i.e., worthless).

This is where you are quite wrong. ESPECIALLY in a debate forum/ It isn't my job to present ''both sides', of the argument.

What do you know of what I know?

From reading your posts? Or not reading your posts? Some of your posts present some good ideas, some are ''close'' to probable answers, others seem a tad off to me, it's subjective sometimes, whats the point of the question? All I know of what you know is what you write on the forums lol.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I so often see the probability argument raised, but it's almost never accompanied by actual calculations.

Usually for one of two classes of reasons:
1) It's a worthless argument
2) It's an argument that takes into account the nuances of the nature of probability and the fact that Kolmogorov's measure-theoretic axiomatic formulation of probability is useful in many, many applications but is fundamentally lacking here, and that Bayesian interpretations, subjective probability, or even frequentism (adequately elucidated) is required here over and against any calculations.

There should be a license requirement for presenting a probability based argument.

Instead, we require fishing licenses.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Not really. That's not how it works. Subjects overlap but only to the extent that the variables don't goof up the process.

Nonsensical.

It isn't my job to present ''both sides', of the argument.

It would be nice for your to present an argument, though.

From reading your posts? Or not reading your posts?

I don't believe you have the requisite background to evaluate most of what I've written here or elsewhere. And I don't particularly care. You started this "flamingo" nonsense and have tripped over yourself trying to turn this absurdity into something of value.

All I know is what you write on the forums lol.

You don't know even this.

 

[Desert Snake]

Nonsensical.




It would be nice for your to present an argument, though.

I don't believe you have the requisite background to evaluate most of what I've written here or elsewhere. And I don't particularly care. You started this "flamingo" nonsense and have tripped over yourself trying to turn this absurdity into something of value.


You don't know even this.

not my problem. you haven't offered anything of value concerning the OP

 

[Revoltingest]

Usually for one of two classes of reasons:
1) It's a worthless argument
2) It's an argument that takes into account the nuances of the nature of probability and the fact that Kolmogorov's measure-theoretic axiomatic formulation of probability is useful in many, many applications but is fundamentally lacking here, and that Bayesian interpretations, subjective probability, or even frequentism (adequately elucidated) is required here over and against any calculations.
Instead, we require fishing licenses.

What I see.....

The poster believes the claims of creationist 'experts' that evolution is highly improbable to the point of being impossible.
Trust in them means one need only state that it's impossible due to improbability.
Thus, instead of presenting an actual analysis, we see the mere pronouncement of sciencey/mathie sounding terminology...."improbable".

If we do get around to specifics, their premises are restricted to those which serve their agenda.
Examples:
Say a biochemical process' evolutionary origins are examined....the poster will say there is
only a single possible evolutionary path from one to another.
This ignores as yet unknown other possible paths. Other errors are to assume an unrealistically
short geological time frame, or to fail to take into account a vast number of organisms involved.
Remember the old arguments that the eye is irreducibly complex? It turns out that pathways
from blindness to vision have more intermediate steps & are more multi-faceted than they ever knew.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If we do get around to specifics

It is the lack of specifics and their contexts I object to. Granted, my neurotic tendencies add to my biases here, but the plethora of arguments both for and against creationism that aren't so trivially insignificant they could be countered by a few lines in mainstream specialist literature require said specifics. Otherwise, we are doomed to a never-ending regurgitation of "god exists because of irreducible complexity" and "there is no god because god requires turtles all the way down" or some other argument or set of arguments that ignores the vast literature from both philosophy and science here. I realize that my own biases against creationist arguments tend to make me overly critical against anti-creationist arguments that fail to meet the standards set by substantive anti-creationist arguments, but I don't see how this is a critical failing here.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What I see.....

The poster believes the claims of creationist 'experts' that evolution is highly improbable to the point of being impossible.
Trust in them means one need only state that it's impossible due to improbability.
Thus, instead of presenting an actual analysis, we see the mere pronouncement of sciencey/mathie sounding terminology...."improbable".

If we do get around to specifics, their premises are restricted to those which serve their agenda.
Examples:
Say a biochemical process' evolutionary origins are examined....the poster will say there is
only a single possible evolutionary path from one to another.
This ignores as yet unknown other possible paths. Other errors are to assume an unrealistically
short geological time frame, or to fail to take into account a vast number of organisms involved.
Remember the old arguments that the eye is irreducibly complex? It turns out that pathways
from blindness to vision have more intermediate steps & are more multi-faceted than they ever knew.

You cannot have every part of an organism change in every direction, and then have natural selection sort it out. The chaos of changing every part in every direction is too large for natural selection. It does not work out mathematically.

And if you cannot calculate the probability of evolution by random mutation and natural selection, then that means evolution theory cannot be evidenced. So either way it is not a good situation for evolution theory.

 

[Revoltingest]

You cannot have every part of an organism change in every direction, and then have natural selection sort it out. The chaos of changing every part in every direction is too large for natural selection. It does not work out mathematically.

I don't claim that is what occurs.
What I see is that we have is a great many organisms over great time, among some of whom some beneficial changes occur.
Given the fitness function of survival & passing on beneficial genes (ie, increasing frequency), evolution is the emergent property.

And if you cannot calculate the probability of evolution by random mutation and natural selection, then that means evolution theory cannot be evidenced. So either way it is not a good situation for evolution theory.

One needn't calculate anything to find evidence.
Alternatives.....
1) Observation of real time "micro-evolution"
Modern medicine depends upon this, eg, anticipating evolution of microbes under the influence of drugs.
2) Testing evolution's predictions by simulation.
This has led to very useful design tools, eg, genetic algorithms.
3) Observing the fossil record of evolving critters.