You Don't Understand...

[TagliatelliMonster]

I realize that you are engrained in your position but


That isn't an answer... IMV, it is a copout.

Where have I made an argument against evolution? When did I make an argument against evolution?

In post #48, where you brought up the false analogy.

You Don't Understand... | Page 3 | Religious Forums

If you look at a painting, you know there is a designer
If you look at a building, you know there is a designer
If you look at a body and realize that there is no nose under the armpit, no eyes under your feet, no hands coming out of your back, et al

you KNOW there is a designer.

Note the bolded part. Yes. You most definitely brought up that "painting" and "building" analogy as an argument against evolution, since it is evolution theory that explains why our bodies are the way they are.

What science attributes to evolutionary processes, you are here trying to attribute those things to your preferred "designer" that you just believe in.

When you are so fixated in a position that you can't even keep a clear head on what we are talking about, then even if you answer 100 of my posts, you just won't make sense.

Maybe you should be a little more fixated on what is being talked about. I mean, at the moment you seem to be literally forgetting what you yourself said just a few posts earlier.


[/QUOTE]

**mod edit**

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But chance would have at least attempted it.

Evolution doesn't work that way.

What drives it to be where it is optimal? Chance?

No, not chance.
Selection pressures.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually... due to the graphic nature, I will not be posting any here.

But, if you would look up 'deformities' of humans and animals, there has been a wide array of recorded absurdities produced from natural conception and birth. They tend not to survive. Perhaps these are the genome attempting to adapt to environment and testing variations of the code to produce a trial-and-error style of survivalism.

No.

The genome, or DNA rather, doesn't "attempt" anything of the sort.
In fact, to the point that it "attempts" anything at all... When it duplicates, it "attempts" to do so perfectly, but fails. Here and there, copying errors occur.
There are self-repair mechanisms in place which will catch some/most of them. But others will slip through. And that will end up as genetic change.

These mutations will then run through the filter of natural selection.
Sometimes they will improve fitness.
Other times they will reduce it.
Most of the time, they will have no effect either way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

True... true... But when two knowledgeable scientists have two different viewpoints... which one is right?

When two knowledgeable scientist have conflicting views then sometimes we have to wait to see who is supported by evidence. That problem was solved over a hundred years ago when it came to evolution vs. creationism.

Science always has been evidence supported. As I have pointed out there are even rules on what qualifies as evidence in the sciences. The rules were not made for the theory of evolution, they apply to all of the sciences. By those rules there is no scientific evidence for creationism. So when you claim "same evidence different interpretation" you are simply wrong. Until a creationist proposes creationism as a testable hypothesis he cannot have any evidence. Do you remember the reasonable question that you dodged? It is not the sort of question any scientist can dodge and call himself a scientist. To be a scientist one has to follow the evidence and if one is too cowardly as a scientist to put one's ideas into a testable form then one cannot claim to be a scientist in that regard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or obsolete theories.

You will note one thing about those "obsolete" theories. Many of them were not even theories. For example the creationist idea of Scientific Racism was refuted by the theory of evolution. That one was never a theory, as the link tells you it is pseudoscience. Ironically I was debating with another poster here about evolution a while ago and he brought up scientific racism as an attack on evolution. When I showed that it was a creationist idea he dropped the argument immediately but never acknowledged his error. By his poor reasoning his claim turned out be one against creationism instead of evolution. For some odd reason an idea that was harmful to evolution was not harmful to creationism.

 

[Bathos Logos]

I'm not concerned with what every Tom, Dick, and Harry says, that's why I said what I did.
How would you like the "pseudo-scientists" to have a say in science?
See what I mean?

Any person can say anything they like about scripture. That doesn't count, just as you would say pseudo-science doesn't count.
Hope you got the point.

But my ultimate point can still be applied to everything you are now saying. A "pseudo-scientist" can easily be refuted by going back to the subject matter, doing an actual experiment (which the pseudo-scientist is pretty much guaranteed not to have done, or to have done incorrectly due to some bias) and verifying or invalidating the results. You simply can't do this with scripture. All you can do is go read it again. That's all you have. Literally.

 

[Kenny]

In post #48, where you brought up the false analogy.

You Don't Understand... | Page 3 | Religious Forums

But it isn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But it isn't.

It is. But you may not understand why.

 

[Kenny]

Evolution doesn't work that way.



No, not chance.
Selection pressures.

True... but not exactly true...

"By the 1800’s there was overwhelming evidence that modern species had evolved from earlier species. The question was: How? There seemed to be only three possibilities: chance, physical necessity, or divine intervention. None of which provided a satisfactory explanation. Then Darwin discovered a fourth possibility and successfully explained evolution by a process of natural selection.

Chance plays a part in evolution, but only a part. Physical laws and natural selection are also part of the process."

So, yes... but no.

 

[Kenny]

It is. But you may not understand why.

Or... you may not understand why I tend to lean my way on this one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or... you may not understand why I tend to lean my way on this one.

No, since you repeatedly demonstrate a lack of understanding the failure is not on my part.

 

[nPeace]

I realize that you are engrained in your position but


That isn't an answer... IMV, it is a copout.

Where have I made an argument against evolution? When did I make an argument against evolution?

When you are so fixated in a position that you can't even keep a clear head on what we are talking about, then even if you answer 100 of my posts, you just won't make sense.

Flooding a thread with all your posts doesn't address my points.

please come out of your box so we can have a good exchange of ideas.

Listening is an art. I find Atheists lack in this... big time.

 

[nPeace]

But my ultimate point can still be applied to everything you are now saying. A "pseudo-scientist" can easily be refuted by going back to the subject matter, doing an actual experiment (which the pseudo-scientist is pretty much guaranteed not to have done, or to have done incorrectly due to some bias) and verifying or invalidating the results. You simply can't do this with scripture. All you can do is go read it again. That's all you have. Literally.

False.
If 10 people wrote a document each, to complete a joint project. Someone can come after, and examine the documents and by so doing, verify or invalidate the Toms Dicks and Harrys.
Don't make it so obvious that you are trying to say documents cannot be understood... just because they are religious.
That's not reasonable.

 

[Bathos Logos]

False.
If 10 people wrote a document each, to complete a joint project. Someone can come after, and examine the documents and by so doing, verify or invalidate the Toms Dicks and Harrys.
Don't make it so obvious that you are trying to say documents cannot be understood... just because they are religious.
That's not reasonable.

What I am saying is that a scientist has actual reality to fall back to in order to try and corroborate evidence that anyone brings to the table. You don't have this in religion outside of pointing at the text and reading it verbatim (which doesn't, at all, relay any meanings that could be or must necessarily be interpreted). Don't pretend you do.

 

[Jose Fly]

You have no idea how science works, do you?

I think that question has been answered already. @nPeace is just as baffled and confused at how science works as I was when I watched our pastor anoint someone with oil and lay hands on them because they had the flu. Even when I'd ask questions about how that works, the answers I got just didn't make sense to me.

It's probably the same for nPeace with science. He seems to be baffled by the fact that scientists do make assumptions, don't always get the absolute correct answer the first time, use words like "may" and "likely", draw conclusions when they have limited data, and sometimes revise those conclusions. And he seems to be even more baffled at how folks like us don't see any of that as problematic.

So no, the scientific way of thinking just doesn't resonate with him at all, and that will probably always be the case.

 

[nPeace]

What I am saying is that a scientist has actual reality to fall back to in order to try and corroborate evidence that anyone brings to the table. You don't have this in religion outside of pointing at the text and reading it verbatim (which doesn't, at all, relay any meanings that could be or must necessarily be interpreted). Don't pretend you do.

What do you think reality is? Is it not historical? Is it not written records of history? Is it not what is reported or transmitted from actual persons, of actual events?
I fail to see the point of your argument.

 

[nPeace]

What I am saying is that a scientist has actual reality to fall back to in order to try and corroborate evidence that anyone brings to the table. You don't have this in religion outside of pointing at the text and reading it verbatim (which doesn't, at all, relay any meanings that could be or must necessarily be interpreted). Don't pretend you do.

Do you think experience is not reality? Is that absent from science?
What really is your point?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Listening is an art. I find Atheists lack in this... big time.

Oh my, we have a case of the pot calling the silverware black.

 

[Bathos Logos]

What do you think reality is? Is it not historical? Is it not written records of history? Is it not what is reported or transmitted from actual persons, of actual events?
I fail to see the point of your argument.

No. Not at all. Maybe that's your problem? If you are able to believe that history is reality? Who knows what else you're willing to believe.

Some super easy examples that blow your "written records of history are reality" trash-talk:

1. Colonizing Americans' treatment of Native Americans
2. Russia's accounts of the reasons for the war in Ukraine

How could you possibly believe that "written records of history" represent reality as a standard? How?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think experience is not reality? Is that absent from science?
What really is your point?

Reality can be properly tested and confirmed. In this case "properly" would be to test falsifiable claims. Do you have falsifiable claims or only a "just so" story?