Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

[Firelight]

Well, science is not in the business of proving. But the evidence is quite overwhelming. Even a simple visual should make it obvious. do not need a biology degree to see that. Remove the clothes, add hair everywhere, including the face, and you will realize you are in the planet of apes, too. Actually, that is what the special effect people of that movie did, successfully. It would not have been possible, if your God opted for a completely different creature that really separated it from the rest.

why didn’t He btw? I mean, suppose you are God. i know, it is Friday, You have been spending the entire week creating the whole universe and everything in it. You are so tired that You even decide to create a day of rest for the almighty, which must indicate infinite exhaustion.

but I have to ask: why didn’t you wait until Monday, to create the pinnacle of everything else? You know, when you are fit again. I mean, to create The very thing you created the entire rest for. You have no boss with deadlines and stuff, so, why? You could have rested a million years, and nobody would have noticed.

Why did you do it while you were so obviously tired to find nothing better than reusing the design of apes?

really?

ciao

- viole

Evidence is proof. Proof is evidence. Science loves evidence. Science is very much into the business of proof. Don’t need a degree to know that, just knowledge of simple vocabulary.

If I were God, I’d never be tired. The 7th day is for worshipping myself, not resting.

 

[viole]

Evidence is proof. Proof is evidence. Science loves evidence. Science is very much into the business of proof. Don’t need a degree to know that, just knowledge of simple vocabulary.

I am afraid it is not. I can prove to you that there are infinite primes, but I cannot prove to you that you are not a brain in a vat. The former is an analytic proposition, the latter is not. While it is impossible that there are only finite primes, it is not impossible that you are not a brain in a vat.

following?

If I were God, I’d never be tired. The 7th day is for worshipping myself, not resting.

Does God worship Himself? Quite an Ego, haven’t we?
With all due respect, I think God suffers from an inferiority complex.

ciao

- viole

 

[Firelight]

I am afraid it is not. I can prove to you that there are infinite primes, but I cannot prove to you that you are not a brain in a vat. The former is an analytic proposition, the latter is not. While it is impossible that there are only finite primes, it is not impossible that you are not a brain in a vat.

following?



Does God worship Himself? Quite an Ego, haven’t we?
With all due respect, I think God suffers from an inferiority complex.

ciao

- viole

Definition of proof


1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

Are you following? Doubt it.

 

[viole]

Definition of proof


1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

Are you following? Doubt it.

Ok, English is my weakest language, so I cannot exclude that some definitions might be different from the other languages I know. Apology.

Nevertheless, do you think that proving analytical things, like there are infinite primes, and proving that, say, all swans are white, belong to the same epistemological level? Or wouldn’t you agree that they belong to different categories?

ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

Definition of proof


1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

Are you following? Doubt it.

That only applies to what we call scientific "axioms". That life forms evolve is an axiom, but the ToE is a "scientific theory", which is very different from just a personal theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

First of all, math is in the business of proving, not science (I do not count math as a strictly scientific discipline). So, science can only provide evidence for its claims. And the fact that we have a common ancestor with chimps, has plenty of evidence. Plenty is an euphemism, here. It is, for all practical purposes, certainty.

and that is the easy one. Just a visual should make it obvious we share some parenthood with those other great apes. We are even contemplating, here in Europe, to extend human rights and call them great ape rights, so that gorillas, chimps, bonobos, etc, will share the same rights we have.

fact is, science has plenty of evidence that shows that we also share a common ancestor with carrots. Which looks, prima facie, less obvious. Well, at least less obvious to sane people who recognize that we are vastly closer to a gorilla than to a carrot.

ciao

- viole

I just looked at a picture of a gorilla. We don't look like gorillas. We don't look like carrots either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just looked at a picture of a gorilla. We don't look like gorillas. We don't look like carrots either.

We look more like gorillas than we look like carrots. But one very rough way to estimate relatedness is by how closely two species resemble each other. And guess what concept that supports?

 

[viole]

I just looked at a picture of a gorilla. We don't look like gorillas. We don't look like carrots either.

Well, just mentally remove our clothes, add vast amount of hair, to even cover the face completely, and you will also agree to be on the planets of apes. And by the way, biologically, we are still classified as apes. Is that bad? I hope you agree we are primates, at least.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Firelight]

That only applies to what we call scientific "axioms". That life forms evolve is an axiom, but the ToE is a "scientific theory", which is very different from just a personal theory.

This is a general English definition of proof. It claims no specific field. No one yet has provided the definition of proof or evidence from a science book that defines it as something other than what our own language does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a general English definition of proof. It claims no specific field. No one yet has provided the definition of proof or evidence from a science book that defines it as something other than what our own language does.

I did.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is a general English definition of proof. It claims no specific field. No one yet has provided the definition of proof or evidence from a science book that defines it as something other than what our own language does.

Definitions are not proof.
Here is a page about the different definitions of truth as it relates to proof.
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Here is another:
Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

You have your version of truth. I have mine.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

You still can't have more than a 100% chance of something happening. 100% is certainty. Wouldn't matter if a million people used intelligence, you can't improve on something having a 100% chance of happening.

I am making an ADVANCED Probability, a new Mathematics.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Incorrect.

How can you claim to understand science when you do not even understand the concept of evidence?

What is evidence in science? Can you give me one evidence for Evolution?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Because you are Intelligent Design creationist.

The Designer is just another title/epithet for God, like “Creator”, the “Almighty”, “Father”, etc.

The Discovery Institute, where they tried to push schools in the US into teaching creationism. Failing that Phillip E Johnson and Steven Meyer covertly started the Intelligent Design movement.

The Discovery Institute isn’t a “think tank”, nor it is scientific community or organisation, it is just a bunch of loser creationists who attempt to fool people into teaching creationism covertly, using propaganda, and social political and legal pressures on schools and school boards that ID in science classes, even when Intelligent Design isn’t science.

Have you read the Discovery Institute’s manifesto in regarding to the mission statement of Intelligent Design?

The manifesto is called the Wedge Strategy. Here is a copy of their manifesto, click here.

It seem apparent that you don’t know of Intelligent Design’s history.

Haven’t you heard of Discovery Institute and Wedge Strategy?

It was started by Johnson and Meyer, both are Christian creationists. They created ID to hide GOD behind the new name, Designer...and only fools have fallen for their con.

I am different. I discovered intelligence and used that to falsify Evolution.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am different. I discovered intelligence and used that to falsify Evolution.

I discovered skepticism and learned to doubt even intelligence.

 

[John53]

What is evidence in science? Can you give me one evidence for Evolution?

Fossils, DNA, observation

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fossils, DNA, observation

To be honest you have to start with methodological naturalism.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I discovered skepticism and learned to doubt even intelligence.

Oh, lol... You used intelligence in your reply to me, how do you define "intelligence" and why?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

To be honest you have to start with methodological naturalism.

But how about in the origin topics?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh, lol... You used intelligence in your reply to me, how do you define "intelligence" and why?

Well, then you have to learn that a definition is not a fact and that for complex analysis you can't use single factor simple definitions.
So I don't define intelligence with a single definition. I explain it as a self-referring process that involves that you explain it as a part of the process of explaining and what you take for granted can influence what intelligence is to you. That is the same for me, I just know that.