The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

If you read even one of my posts then you'd see I don't believe in evolution. To say it another way every interpretation is wrong.

We know you do not accept science and are intent on replacing it with your fantasy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But you can't cite a single one and argue about it. You just read something with which you disagree and tell me what you believe.

Every post in response to your fantasy is a citation.

 

[ratiocinator]

If survival of the fittest applies to evolutionary "theory"...

You have shown repeatedly that you don't understand what "survival of the fittest" means in the context of evolutionary theory.

If you read even one of my posts then you'd see I don't believe in evolution.

But you obviously don't know what the theory is that you are dismissing. You don't understand what it says or what the relevant terms (like "fittest") mean. You appear to be speaking from a position of complete ignorance and a total refusal to even try to learn anything about it.

If you're convinced you're right, why are you so afraid of understanding what you are dismissing? Why not try to "know your enemy" at least?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But you can't cite a single one and argue about it. You just read something with which you disagree and tell me what you believe.

You do not post evidence showing anything to argue about. You make claims. You don't provide the evidence or reasoning for that claim. Then you launch an endless string of repetition of those claims while ignoring all those pointing out the flaws in your thinking, actions and understanding.

If you told me that a giant talking mouse built the pyramids using a cheese-powered antigravity sled, it amounts to the same level of credibility as any claim you have made here and should receive equal rejection as those claims have.

Since you never change and your claims never change and they are never supported, pointing all of it out as the nonsense that it is, is sufficient.

 

[cladking]

The internal logic is based on the assumption that you are correct about something that is externally wrong.

But you can't cite what that is.

I keep laying out exactly what is wrong with your assumptions but you can't argue about that either.

I will not respond further to anything not related to my or your argument.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then you aren't aware it was Max Planck who said science advances one funeral at a time and even after I tell you, you still don't know.

Life is learning and if you aren't learning at least one new thing every day then you are doing it wrong.

I would be interested to know how you make a living. Clearly you have no training or expertise in science. Do you talk about this at work or do you keep that hidden?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But you can't cite what that is.

I keep laying out exactly what is wrong with your assumptions but you can't argue about that either.

I will not respond further to anything not related to my or your argument.

It has been cited numerous times by everyone that has responded to your posts.

You are trying to establish a false equivalence here. It will not work.

The history of the threads you have participated in are rife with citations of your failure.

You have no argument and you already refused to address corrections made to your fantasy. So nothing will change.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If survival of the fittest applies to evolutionary "theory" then my theory will prevail because my theory can beat the hell the out yours.

You realize you've regressed to just gainsaying the opposing argument. Gainsaying is like the children on the playground with a chorus of "is too"/ "is not".

I will not sink top your level.

You don't have a scientific theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no such thing as Homo omnisciensis. It is made up. It is not science. It is fantasy.

All changes in life are not sudden. The claim that all change in life is sudden is made up. It is not based on the evidence which supports a variable pace for changes in living things with evolution dominated by slow, incremental changes.

There is a persistent misuse and mischaracterization of biological terms that is perpetuated by the untrained, anti-science crowd in order to make straw man arguments.

There is no evidence of the involvement of consciousness in evolution.

Ancient science is a fantasy fiction.

Ancient language is a fantasy fiction.

The pyramids were built by men and not by magic.

 

[exchemist]

So why do you studiously avoid learning anything at all about the theory of evolution?

Rhetorical?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If survival of the fittest applies to evolutionary "theory" then my theory will prevail because my theory can beat the hell the out yours.

You realize you've regressed to just gainsaying the opposing argument. Gainsaying is like the children on the playground with a chorus of "is too"/ "is not".

I will not sink top your level.

Please. We all know that you do not have a theory. But what the heck, let's see if you will demonstrate that yourself.

Okay, you have a theory. What reasonable test based upon the merits of your own theory could possibly refute it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you read even one of my posts then you'd see I don't believe in evolution. To say it another way every interpretation is wrong.

One does not need to believe in something to understand it. You only have mere belief. I do not "believe in evolution" either. I have knowledge that it is correct. All you have is mere belief and knowledge trumps belief. I can support my claims with evidence. When are you ever going to support yours?

 

[F1fan]

BINGO!!!!!!!

And this shows Darwin was wrong in his assumption that populations remain steady which disproves the entire concept of "evolution".

GIGO. Evolution is GARBAGE.

Evolution is so well supported through experimentation and data analysis that is is effectively a fact. Your capital letters don't do anything.

In case you're not aware of this: creationists often attack Darwin as if he should have gotten everything correct in 1856. You using this behavior is a big red flag.

What you should be doing is presenting work that supports your claims. You aren't. Modern science stands as you stumble on an internet forum.

 

[F1fan]

Please. We all know that you do not have a theory. But what the heck, let's see if you will demonstrate that yourself.

Okay, you have a theory. What reasonable test based upon the merits of your own theory could possibly refute it?

I explained to clad that he doesn't have a theory. He doesn't even have a hypothesis from what I can tell. That he has contempt for an actual theory in science, and fraudulently claims he has a theory, shows complete disrespect for science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I explained to clad that he doesn't have a theory. He doesn't even have a hypothesis from what I can tell. That he has contempt for an actual theory in science, and fraudulently claims he has a theory, shows complete disrespect for science.

I know that. Heck we all know that. But it might be entertaining to see him fail massively at his own claim.

Of course there is a huge benefit Dunning Kruger benefit. One can fall in one's face into a cow patty and claim that one is still smelling roses.

 

[F1fan]

Don't snip the thought. Nature is logical and logic WANTS no unfit individuals. It is illogical for nature to want the unfit so there are none.

It was colloquialism that was explained in the very next sentence that you -snipped-.

What you are doing here is called anthropomorphism. It's not logical.

 

[F1fan]

I know that. Heck we all know that. But it might be entertaining to see him fail massively at his own claim.

Of course there is a huge benefit Dunning Kruger benefit. One can fall in one's face into a cow patty and claim that one is still smelling roses.

My immediate analogy was a person who is floundering in a pool all by himself, but describing it as winning a world class swim event.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know that. Heck we all know that. But it might be entertaining to see him fail massively at his own claim.

Of course there is a huge benefit Dunning Kruger benefit. One can fall in one's face into a cow patty and claim that one is still smelling roses.

I think you and @F1fan in a previous post, are correct . The more the facts are pointed out that shatter these fantasies, the more these fantasy-proponents see their fantasies as validated.

 

[F1fan]

My ignorance is nearly complete.

Correct.

Not only do I know very little science now days but science in aggregate knows almost nothing at all compared to all there is know.

Then by what authority are you posting anything against science?

You seem to believe that since science is absolutely correct about everything because of the omniscience of Peers and that there is an equation for every possible thing that knowing all of science would be all there is to know. You obviously believe that science must be on the right track on every single thing. Just like the boy who could see the emperor was naked there are those today who can see right through the assumption and the conclusions based on bad assumptions.

What you are doing here is recognizing that you have an extreme view, and you're trying to inverse this onto me my creating a false scenario. What you are trying to do is suggest I'm the extreme person and by contrast you are moderate. In reality I accept science and understand its limitations and dependency on facts and data. Your attitude is contempt for science, and thus is the extreme view. You probably know that I know better than to believe your nonsense, so you are likely trying to convince yourself that this is true, and to offset the cognitive dissonance and stress you must be feeling. By now you likely realize you are mistaken and have taken a proud position on a matter that you are wrong about. pride and ego does funny things in the brain. The conflict between the conscious and subconscious is evident.

What we have here is a bunch of naked kings parading around and not listening to anyone except other naked kings.

Now you are trying to make all of us equally flawed so to somehow give yourself an excuse and exemption for all the mistakes and bad claims you've made. However, the educated are not naked kings following another. You have adopted and created some bad ideas and it sounds as if you are becoming aware of it. You are accountable for your own beliefs and thinking.

Some of these naked kings could in theory evolve clothes given sufficient time but others, like Egyptologists, will never even know even after everyone starts laughing they will still believe. It will be utter destruction, a population bottleneck, if you please and a new species will take up the niche of studying ancient Egypt. Such is the way of life. Almost all Egyptologists engage in the same behavior of running about dusting sandf from pottery shards and skeletons while not parsing the same ancient writing that has been parsed for 200 years. There will be no niche for this in the future. Art and science imitate life but Egyptology is dead. Long live Egyptology.

OK, here you are now in denial and trying to offset the attempt at humility in the previous paragraph. Of course what you mean is you are the king that evolves clothes. This has been your modus operandi all through this discussion: that you have special knowledge and science is flawed (since it disagrees with you). You can continue your quest to find a sword to pull from a stone, but given what you've said thus far, it aint there.

 

[cladking]

All these posts and so few that are relevant.

All changes in life are not sudden. The claim that all change in life is sudden is made up. It is not based on the evidence which supports a variable pace for changes in living things with evolution dominated by slow, incremental changes.

All observed changes in life, changes in species, and changes associated with individuals and species are sudden. "Evolution" is the odd man out. you are claiming it is gradual and then ignoring every bit of evidence that I cite. Explain how fit wolves slowly changed into less fit dogs despite the FACT we know it was sudden. Why do you keep ignoring this? Over and over I cite evidence you and believers ignore it. Just address this one simple example and then maybe I'll try to move on. There's plenty of more evidence I can always repeat. I'm sure I'll think of lots more if you want to actually discuss it.

I would be interested to know how you make a living.

I've always gotten things done for a living. I've moved mountains and changed opinion. Nobody ever likes having me around but then it's like the guy who believes he has the golden touch; they don't believe any of it but they need the gold. I am a nexialist and see connections that others miss.

You have no argument and you already refused to address corrections made to your fantasy.

But you can't cite a single example.

You don't have a scientific theory.

I never really said I did. It is a series of hypotheses.

You might want to look up the word "theory" in a dictionary before you respond. I know you won't though.

In case you're not aware of this: creationists often attack Darwin as if he should have gotten everything correct in 1856.

I wasn't aware but it's irrelevant. Simply stated creationists are no less intelligent (there's no such thing as "intelligence) and they make no less sense than any scientist (remember everybody makes perfect sense in terms of their premises). Creationists can make the exact same arguments as me or a scientist. They can be right or wrong just like everyone else. The only people who are always wrong is Congress.

Ancient science is a fantasy fiction.

Homo omnisciencis. I guess you now believe you've straightened me out on this issue.

What you should be doing is presenting work that supports your claims. You aren't.

You explain how wolves suddenly devolved into dogs and I'll repeat all the evidence.

Your beliefs are illogical and not supported.