Why we shouldn't believe in evolution.

@contrex,

contrex wrote:

farmerman wrote:

I understand they hand out great tankards of amontillado to warm you up before going afield. Very English, get em loaded then give em a gun

Don't knock amontillado, I like a drop of that!

I have a whole cask of it I can show you.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Let me guess . . . it's in the cellar, right next to your pile of bricks and mortar.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

I dare the original poster to state the theory of evolution. A minimum prerequisite for informed debate is to be able to state your opponent's position correctly.

There is no definition.

1 Reply

As Jespah has already suggested, evolution is not a matter of belief. Nor, for that matter, is evolution a theory. When scientists discuss 'evolutionary theory', they are discussing how the fact of evolution operates in the biosphere, not if or whether.

Evolution is a fact of life.

2 Replies

@jespah,

jespah wrote:

Actually, we shouldn't believe in evolution.

Not necessarily so, see here for one of the possible definitions of belief:

Quote:

3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

but it is also a theory. A theory surrounds a "Body of facts and evidence" that supports an explanation of a phenomenaon.
IN FACT
A theory is fact. The dictionary gives several definitions and , in the American Collegiate, the first definition for a theory is, as Ive presented above, but the SECOND definition states that a theory is a "proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural". The problem with these overlapping hierarchical definitions is that most people don't recognize the robust factual basis of the word "THEORY" when used in science. Think ATOMIC THEORY, or CONTINENTAL DRIFT THEORY or GERM THEORY.

Its a bitch when words get coopted for different ends. Look at how the English language has been fucked with to satisfy computer geeks.

If I gotta learn the differences of language in computerese, then the damn IDERS better learn the meaning of theory when used by science.

THIS IS NOT NEGOTIABLE

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I once had a woman, a fundamentalist 'born-again' Christian,tell me, "After all, evolution is just a theory"

I told her: "Sure. Now you want to tell the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that atomic theory is just a theory? I mean,nobody has ever actually seen an atom."

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Let me guess . . . it's in the cellar, right next to your pile of bricks and mortar.

Yup.

1 Reply

@JohnJonesCardiff,

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I dare the original poster to state the theory of evolution. A minimum prerequisite for informed debate is to be able to state your opponent's position correctly.

There is no definition.

So, you're asserting that a belief which you cannot state is false. You lose. Go ahead with the allegedly witty comebacks. You've lost the argument.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Somehow I just got hungry for a Poe boy sammich

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

THIS IS NOT NEGOTIABLE

What's all the fuss about then?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Somehow I just got hungry for a Poe boy sammich

I can think up a lot better excuses that that simple squib.

No wonder the public doesn't trust you fuckers.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

As Jespah has already suggested, evolution is not a matter of belief. Nor, for that matter, is evolution a theory. When scientists discuss 'evolutionary theory', they are discussing how the fact of evolution operates in the biosphere, not if or whether.

Evolution is a fact of life.

There are no facts of evolution, just as there are no facts of religion.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I dare the original poster to state the theory of evolution. A minimum prerequisite for informed debate is to be able to state your opponent's position correctly.

There is no definition.

So, you're asserting that a belief which you cannot state is false. You lose. Go ahead with the allegedly witty comebacks. You've lost the argument.

Quite right. A logical observation, one that I was aware of from the start. That is why I indicated that I cannot believe in evolution because nothing coherent has been presented for me to believe in.

1 Reply

@JohnJonesCardiff,

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I dare the original poster to state the theory of evolution. A minimum prerequisite for informed debate is to be able to state your opponent's position correctly.

There is no definition.

So, you're asserting that a belief which you cannot state is false. You lose. Go ahead with the allegedly witty comebacks. You've lost the argument.

Quite right. A logical observation, one that I was aware of from the start. That is why I indicated that I cannot believe in evolution because nothing coherent has been presented for me to believe in.

You cannot state your debating opponent's position, but you assert that it is wrong. The theory of evolution has long been stated clearly in many, many places, free for you to look at, but you haven't bothered. You've skipped right to "it's wrong." Someone who cannot even state his debating opponent's position loses. You lose.

In order for you to have won, you would have had to know what the theory of evolution is and then given an argument that it is incorrect. You don't know what the theory is and merely repeat over and over that it's wrong. By any standard of logic or debate, you lose the argument.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

There's a way round that, you know, Brandon. The Corgi simply refuses to admit defeat or accept loss and that's that. What's logic got to do with it anyway?

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

There's a way round that, you know, Brandon. The Corgi simply refuses to admit defeat or accept loss and that's that. What's logic got to do with it anyway?

It's the argument of a child. Just keep repeating "no" without actually trying to establish the merit of your position.

0 Replies

@jespah,

jespah wrote:

Actually, we shouldn't believe in evolution. It's not a belief, a myth, a religion or a fantasy. Use the term belief for those things, not for scientific observations that have been independently vetted and confirmed. If you want to reject them, then use terms like reject or accept. But don't muddy the waters by applying the standards of religion to those of science. They are apples and oranges.

I beg to differ. The evolutionary hypothesis cannot be subjected to the rigors of scientific method. Nobody's fault, really. It's just that no speciation event has ever been observed and no test has ever been devised.

Its just an endless series of hypotheses, guesses, if you will.
that should satisfy Frank.

2 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

jespah wrote:
Actually, we shouldn't believe in evolution. It's not a belief, a myth, a religion or a fantasy. Use the term belief for those things, not for scientific observations that have been independently vetted and confirmed. If you want to reject them, then use terms like reject or accept. But don't muddy the waters by applying the standards of religion to those of science. They are apples and oranges.
I beg to differ. The evolutionary hypothesis cannot be subjected to the rigors of scientific method. Nobody's fault, really. It's just that no speciation event has ever been observed and no test has ever been devised.

Its just an endless series of hypotheses, guesses, if you will.
that should satisfy Frank.

You can see bacteria evolving resistance to medicines. You can see fossil records of the types of creatures which lived at different times and how they changed over time. But, hey, let's all believe a series of writings by our ancient ancestors which postulates a supernatural being.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

JohnJonesCardiff wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I dare the original poster to state the theory of evolution. A minimum prerequisite for informed debate is to be able to state your opponent's position correctly.

There is no definition.

So, you're asserting that a belief which you cannot state is false. You lose. Go ahead with the allegedly witty comebacks. You've lost the argument.

Quite right. A logical observation, one that I was aware of from the start. That is why I indicated that I cannot believe in evolution because nothing coherent has been presented for me to believe in.

You cannot state your debating opponent's position, but you assert that it is wrong. The theory of evolution has long been stated clearly in many, many places, free for you to look at, but you haven't bothered. You've skipped right to "it's wrong." Someone who cannot even state his debating opponent's position loses. You lose.

In order for you to have won, you would have had to know what the theory of evolution is and then given an argument that it is incorrect. You don't know what the theory is and merely repeat over and over that it's wrong. By any standard of logic or debate, you lose the argument.

I'm not saying that evolution is factually wrong, or right for that matter. I'm saying that there is no single, coherent topic that is called "evolution".

2 Replies

Why we shouldn't believe in evolution.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know