Evolutionry/religious nonsense

@ekename,

0 Replies

@ekename,

0 Replies

@ekename,

0 Replies

@ekename,

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

The first slight breeze of honesty in your posts. I have pointed out for a very long time that you are bent on inserting a "creator" into the narrative. You have long been engaged in question-begging--assuming said creator at the outset, and then trying to work backward to show evidence of a creation. The evidence is just not there, which is why I refer to Occam's Razor. You have grossly misstated what Occam's Razor says. Specifically, it reads: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, causes are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. What you offer at the outset is a violation of that principle, because you are insisting on a creator god, thereby assuming the burden of demonstrating the existence of said entity before proceeding to cases. The universe is only, patently, evidence that there is a universe. If you want to delve into your theology, do it in an appropriate context, and not in a discussion of evolution as a scientific theory. I suggest that you are terrified by the idea of randomness. First, because it is beyond your control, or anyone's control, such as your imaginary friend. Second, because it beggars any attempt on your part to insert your imaginary friend into the narrative. Finally, because you are no longer special in your cozy cosmos if you are merely the product of a series of random events.

All of your discursus is no more than assuming a premise and attempting to cram all that data into that premise, without first having demonstrated the premise. Evolution has no mechanism for avoiding catastrophic extinctions, and humanity in particular trembled on the verge of extinction at many times in our sordid little history. When more than 99% of a species that have ever existed are reasonably assumed to have gone extinct, and with extinctions happening all around us, every year, your "creator" becomes a Three Stooges-style stumblebum, a child playing in a sand box.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

You really lost it that time . . . full-on, balls to the wall idiocy.

You have wrapped yourself in argumentum ad numerum and argumentum ad populum. As Disraeli observed, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. You say 69% of post-graduates disaree with me? About what--you have quoted me three times, so I can assume that those 69% damn me root and branch? What did they take their degrees in, literature, business administration, drama, underwater basket-weaving? You then go on to list percentages of people who believe in your Jeebus, which was disingenuous since you didn't specify percentages of what populations. Do you think those figures hold true in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, China? As Anatole France observed, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

Your rhetorical method is a mess.

At least you came out of the weeds and admitted to being a creationist, after all the BS about being an "evolutionist" but troubled by the concept of macroevolution. Are you not buoyed up by your honesty now?

More than 2000 years ago, Alexander III of Macedon, the so-called Alexander the Great, ran amok in the middle east and south Asia. We have the city of Alexandria, which he founded, and which is still an important port city to this day. We have his mug on the coinage of his supposed empire. We have monumental inscriptions about him. What have we got for your boy Jeebus? A pack of bullsh*t stories written long after he was alleged to have lived, and written by people who don't even profess to have known him.

Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.

1 Reply

@ekename,

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

You have long been engaged in question-begging--assuming said creator at the outset, and then trying to work backward to show evidence of a creation.

That is the scientific method, form a hypothesis look for evidence to support it.

Quote:

The evidence is just not there, which is why I refer to Occam's Razor. You have grossly misstated what Occam's Razor says. Specifically, it reads: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, causes are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. What you offer at the outset is a violation of that principle, because you are insisting on a creator god, thereby assuming the burden of demonstrating the existence of said entity before proceeding to cases.

You offer no cause what so ever except shazam something out of nothing. No pattern of it ever happening again. No pattern of extreme order coming from simplicity without intelligent intervention. You need a cause, that's the pattern today. Or, give a reason why the pattern didn't follow in ancient times. I am giving a reason to believe, it follows the pattern we observe today, "order always comes from intelligence".

Quote:

What you offer at the outset is a violation of that principle, because you are insisting on a creator god, thereby assuming the burden of demonstrating the existence of said entity before proceeding to cases. The universe is only, patently, evidence that there is a universe.

That dose not follow the pattern all of science has been following since science began. Everything that has happened was caused by something. Dead body with a bullet hole - somebody shot someone. House or a bridge somebody built it. Novel or algorithm, somebody wrote it. Patterns are accepted evidence to support a theory by scientists since science began. That is what scientists do.

Quote:

because you are insisting on a creator god, thereby assuming the burden of demonstrating the existence of said entity before proceeding to cases.

The hardware and the operating system that the algorithm of evolution by natural selection is operating in(that you and I are part of) requires a builder and author of some significance when compared to algorithms and hardware we have been creating since the beginning of mankind. Recognizing the algorithm, the operating system, and the hardware (the universe the laws of physics, and evolution of biology) and assuming an author is a scientific recognition of a pattern. I have not witnessed a complex algorithm coming into existence without hardware being assembled first by someone so that hardware can operate the algorithm.

Instead you are offering that the hardware and operating system(matter and the laws of physics) was the result of an explosion called the Big Bang, and the algorithm (biological evolution) was written by no one.

What pattern are you following?

Quote:

The universe is only, patently, evidence that there is a universe.

That is a weak interpretation of life(in all its diversity and interdependent complexity) in the universe. I know you are smarter than that.

Quote:

If you want to delve into your theology, do it in an appropriate context, and not in a discussion of evolution as a scientific theory.

I don't want to delve into theology. I am looking for evidence of a substantial intelligent entity that can build a huge amount of hardware to operate a tremendously complex operating system and algorithm.

Quote:

I suggest that you are terrified by the idea of randomness. First, because it is beyond your control, or anyone's control, such as your imaginary friend. Second, because it beggars any attempt on your part to insert your imaginary friend into the narrative. Finally, because you are no longer special in yo ur cozy cosmos if you are merely the product of a series of random events.

I suggest you quit psychoanalyzing people who think the evidence in the patterns supports a theory that includes intelligence in the origins and construction of the universe and just concentrate on analyzing and interpreting the patterns.

I have not witnessed a complex algorithm coming into existence without hardware being assembled first by someone so that hardware can operate the algorithm.

Instead you are offering that the hardware and operating system(matter and the laws of physics) was the result of an explosion called the Big Bang, and the algorithm (biological evolution) was written by no one.

What pattern are you following?

5 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

You really lost it that time . . . full-on, balls to the wall idiocy.

I was quoting polls of Americans. These people are intelligent and functioning in the real world like you and I. I am quoting these polls to offer an alternative to your name calling like," full-on, balls to the wall idiocy."

Quote:

"If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

What have I said that is foolish?

I am a creationist who believes in evolution. A pattern that I am following is:

Henry Ford created Ford motor company, the Ford car and the motor company have been evolving ever since then.

What pattern are you following?

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

Brian,
You say:

Quote:

"order always comes from intelligence".

But that's not exactly true. Sometimes order just happens, in fact it's very common.
When a planet forms, the densest material settles at the core, the lightest at the very outer layer.
In a riverbed, the rushing water sorts gravel by size and density.
Put some water, sand, oil and styrofoam pellets in a blender, turn it on for 30 seconds then watch order come from chaos.

1 Reply

@TomTomBinks,

TomTomBinks wrote:

Brian,
You say:

Quote:
"order always comes from intelligence".

But that's not exactly true. Sometimes order just happens, in fact it's very common.
When a planet forms, the densest material settles at the core, the lightest at the very outer layer.
In a riverbed, the rushing water sorts gravel by size and density.
Put some water, sand, oil and styrofoam pellets in a blender, turn it on for 30 seconds then watch order come from chaos.

Why do planets form? A simple answer to me is "there's just a place for them there" but why?

1 Reply

@jerlands,

Don't know Jerry, but I like your taste in music!

1 Reply

@TomTomBinks,

it's jon but uh.. I think jerlands is better used.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Idiocy is not an entity which would resent being named for what it is. There was no name-calling, go whine to someone else.

You have completely avoided the criticism, the valid criticism, that I applied ot that drivel about what people believe. The France quotation was to underline your use of ad numerum and ad populum fallacies. That a great many people believe something is not evidence that it is true. That a great many people with university degrees believe something is not evidence that it is true. Would you allow someone with a university degree in business management to perform surgery on you? After all, said individual has a degree--by the "logic" you're employing, simply having a university education should qualify them.

Your response is just an exercise in weaseling out of the burden of defending your claims.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Nonsense--scientific hypotheses are not founded on superstition and wishful thinking. A scientific hypothesis seeks to explain data which has already been observed and recorded. It certainly is not a case of coming up with what seems like a good idea, and then looking around for justification. You certainly have no business commenting on the scientific method if you can't do any better than that.

Quote:

You offer no cause what so ever except shazam something out of nothing.

This is completely nonsensical. What the hell were you thinking? Something out of nothing? I offered nothing which can reasonably be characterized in that manner. When you start talking sense, I'll respond to that.

You really do not understand science and the scientific method at all. There is no answer to your claim because it does not describe science or the scientific method.

Continuing to gabble about your silly, your very foolish hardware/operating system/algorithm analogy is pointless. You have not established a premise, you have just offered it, evidence free. You continue to ignore the significance of random events. I suspect you fear them. I suspect that you fear the implications of a cosmos which is indifferent to you, and your silly god stories. Really, you are very boring. Snide backhanded compliments on my intelligence don't hide the contempt you are expressing. I've got news for you, buddy, I have no respect for your intellect. Delving into theology is your only activity here. At no time did I mention any "big bang." There is a name for making up stories about what one's interlocutor has said. The polite name is a straw man fallacy. The more honest name is lying.

You haven't offered a shred of evidence. At such time as you do, you might actually offer something interesting to discuss. So far, you haven't.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

That is the scientific method, form a hypothesis look for evidence to support it

The problem with that is that youve got it almost all ass backwards. What youve forgotten is the first step

1Observe a phenomenon

2Form a hypothesis

3TEST the hypothesis

In the scientific method, the resultant theories are CONCLUSIONS from the available evidence . What you do is
1Decide on a mechanism

2 Try to deny any evidence that refutes your assertion

3 Cherry pick from " slogans and denialism" that support this refutation. That is, anything youve presented as evidence so far has NEVER directly supported anything you continue to assert, do you even realize that??. You only engage in incredulity and science denial.

You are NOT engaged in the scientific method. In fact, you're far from it. Your "search for evidence" does NOT allow you to deviate from your fixed assertion about some form of theistic control (But its not even good forT.E. because you have some personal (almost Fundamentalist) rules that dont fit a "believer" in theistic evolution)

The search for evidence in cience must always be ready to require us to drop and forget a previous "fact" because it has been overturned by new more convincing evidence.
In my arena, I recall that in my college days, the theories of Plate Tectonics, Seafloor Spreading, and Continental Drift had been developing with strong evidence since WWII and detailed magnetometric mapping of the seafloor for sub warfare. Up till that point global tectonics was based on resolving two forces going up and down and mountains being raised from overfilled sediment basins that just "popped" up against the "pull of gravity"

Geophysics began showing us that, not only was this "fact" not true it was almost idiotically untrue. SCientists, well respected as global tectonics experts, threw up their arms and quit their fields because theyd been shown to be dead wrong. So many things resulted from that pwriod, like massive data heaps and increasing the speed and torage of computers, the concepts oof giant interconnected fractures and magma pools, and subduction , and seafloor spreading rates, that in the space of 15 yers from 1965 to 1980, we had to rewrite an entire science.
SCience is like that, holding on to "facts" too long can become embarrassing to the holder. Its that way with evolution. We are going through a minor readjustment right now with all the new data becoming available about human evolution and contemporaneity of many Homo species at one time or another. (It seems that humans are like ants with more than one species in the ring at the same time).
I hope you can see this discrepancy .

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

"order always comes from intelligence".

Obviously, with that worldview, there are a number of disciplines that you must deny, like Thermodynamics

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

I am looking for evidence of a substantial intelligent entity that can build a huge amount of hardware to operate a tremendously complex operating system and algorithm.

This is not science, it is a religion . How do you propose to "find this guy"?? Do you have a study plan or a research proposal??

The boys over at the Discovery Institute have been busy for ovr 15 years and havent come up with anything yet. (They claim success in publishing papers in scientific journals but f you inspect ANY of these papers, you will find that they have nothing to do with "Universal Intelligence or ID, they are mainly what are called "place holding research reports" in the researchers former subject in which they recd; their PhD's). They reserve their ID reports for self published or Discovery Institute published stuff.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

1Observe a phenomenon

We appear to have a massive amount of hardware in the universe, running the operating system of the laws of physics, with the algorithm of natural slection running in that operating system.

Quote:

2Form a hypothesis

Following the pattern we observe of all the algorithms, operating systems, and hardware that man has built we can logically hypothesize that somebody built the one we call evolution by natrual selection, operating under the laws of physics, inside the hardware of the universe.

Quote:

3TEST the hypothesis

Have not ever observed the pattern being broken;
1. Have not observed hardware arising on its own and ordering itself out of nothing. (Have not observed abiogenisis safe to assume we never will.) Have not observed new matter arising out of nothing only being emitted from existing super novae and stars which are preexisting hardware and operating systems.

2. Have only observed hardware that already exists evolving to higher complexity because it is running a preexisting algorithm.

3. Since abiogenisis cannot be replicated or observed, and matter is necessary for gravity to exist, and we can assume gravity existed for the Big Bang to have even happen the Big Bang is not the point where matter was created there must be a quantum creation event similar to abiogenisis.

4. Intelligence was necessary to initiate the quantum creation event, order the hardware so the operating system could run the algorithm we are observing in operation today as the laws of physics and evolution by natural selection.

I think we agree that the algorithm of evolution by natural selection is running quite well and we have a fairly good understanding of the software running in the hardware of all living biology as a living algorithm.

Where do you think it came from? How did it get started? Do you have an alternative pattern we can observe?

What is your alternative theory to counter the need for a quantum creation event, and abiogenisis ?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Obviously, with that worldview, there are a number of disciplines that you must deny, like Thermodynamics

Could you explain?

0 Replies

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know