Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

@farmerman,

Quote:

THATS what the Cretins and the IDers fail to admit.

How anybody can take any notice of a guy who goes into print with such nonsensical, circular garbage as that is beyond my comprehension.

Anybody who fails to admit the uses of evolutionary theories in medicine and agriculture is a cretin and an IDer and the cretins and IDers are the ones failing to admit those uses. It's as bad as saying that a paperweight is to weigh down papers.

Whether fm can find any IDers who fail to admit those uses is a question for him. And even if he can find one it proves nothing about IDers generally.

And all they need do to be thought to be not cretins is to admit those uses and then they are geniuses like he is.

It's probably the oldest dirty rhetorical trick known to mankind and it assumes a stupid audience which is fm's stock-in-trade. His fundamentalist sub-text.

Objective bullshit is the term for it.

0 Replies

@wayne,

NOW you are dodging the point
You sated that Mans knowledge was finite

1Solomon stated that God created it "all" in a manner that man would never figure out

2Solomon was a man

3 According to you-Solomon 's knowledge was finite

4 Does new "finite" knowledge merely replace what Solomon said?
(Id say yes, and I dont believe that SOlomon said anything of the sort)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Ok then, if it makes you happy I said it. It has been said. Or do you not get that.
Yes, mans' knowledge is finite.
Your argument is silly and meaningless. I've read your posts and I know you are knowledgable and intelligent, why would you try that kind of B.S.
Spendius has you 2 right on the money.

1 Reply

@wayne,

Im sorry you feel that way, if you are frustrated by my rude picking apart of your post, Hey dont post stuff like that and espect it to stand without scrutiny.

Your statements were internally conflicting and , were you to read that entire Solomon schtick obkectively, you would realize it too. You stuck yourself in the crack and now your klashing out.

TAke some deep breaths and continue. Its really not that important anyway. MAny of us here argue like Democrats all the time and dont take things so personally. (Some do, but most dont)

0 Replies

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

Is believing in some sort of spontaneous appearance of matter really any more logical, sound, or reality based, than belief in god?

1) The answer to your question is: "not applicable". Most physicists I know wouldn't say they believe in the spontaneous appearance of matter. Rather, they would say they don't know where matter came from. Additionally, they may consider this information unknowable in principle. And that's a perfectly sound position to hold. You can be both agnostic about how matter came to exist and atheistic about gods.

2) If atheist physicists did believe in spontaneous appearance of matter, the answer to your question would be "yes". That's because belief in any gods still has to account for the spontaneous appearance of the gods. By believing in spontaneous appearance of matter instead, you at least remove one improbable entity whose existence you need to account for. In that sense, believing in spontaneous appearance of matter is somewhat more sound than believing in the spontaneous appearance of gods, who then went on to create matter.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

You can be both agnostic about the appearance of matter and atheistic about gods.

Obviously. You can be a lot of other things as well. You can be an expert if you regurgitate all fm's lesson notes in the exam paper he's marking.

The problem is showing that what you have chosen to be out of all the things you can be is justifiable. And sticking to what you chose to be a long while ago in another world despite a new world opening up assumes that the new world has not moved on from the world of long ago. At bottom, an insult to the new world and stupid as well because who would want to waste their time in a world without dynamic movement. Sticking to what was chosen from the things one can be is running on the spot.

As Thomas has been saying that sort of thing for donkey's years it's obvious he is running on the spot and then his presence on a site called Able To Know becomes a mere conceit and not a learning experience. He's even incapable of finding new word formulations to express the old ideas.

His whole post is as circular as a spinning top.

1 Reply

@spendius,

If Thomas' post is a spinning top, yours belongs in the garbage heap. Your posts doesn't contribute anything close to intellectual value, and all you do is repeat your old tired messages that belongs in second grade discussions, and not on a2k.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I gave my reasons. It won't have escaped the notice of the intelligent A2Kers that you haven't. Your blurt is unsupported by any evidence.

Shame on you you scientific wannabee you!!

1 Reply

@spendius,

You wrote:

Quote:

And sticking to what you chose to be a long while ago in another world despite a new world opening up assumes that the new world has not moved on from the world of long ago.

Not only bad English grammar, but bloody nonsensical.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

...ARtificial selection and animal husbandry tricks had been in use for at least a millenium already, so "faith" wasnt really an accurate term in his case.

For me that's again not an evidence at all. How do you know what those old guys did? You "know" from archaeology, chronicles and all the rest of it. But your knowledge is again only an interpretation of facts, not a fact. For example, in archaeology, as I mentioned it, the only fact is that those fossils are lying before me. What begins next is the product of my mind.

farmerman wrote:

I suppose if you wish to continue in your thought process, I cant stop you, But in my opinion, youd be quite wrong. If you say that youre a scientist, think about the governing theories in your work. SInce you rely upon them to demonstrate that your work is proceeding along within an established discipline, you dont even question whether they need "faith" to make sure that everything that happened yesterday will be the same today or that you can make valid predictions based upon the theories and its laws.

In physics we have a certain set of beliefs that need not be questioned. Just because not accepting them we shall not move any further. If you want to play a game, you need rules, those rules are called postulates. There's no proof for them and if you don't want to play our game, you are welcome to create another one.
One of those rules in physics, much as in any science, is that theory should be developed further in the case if what happens now, goes in accordance with it.
Another postulate is "practical". Amongst those consistent theories we choose those which promise more practical results. And work with them.
But the priority always belongs to facts, that is what we perceive now.

2 Replies

@Eudaimon,

Quote:

in physics, much as in any science, is that theory should be developed further in the case if what happens now, goes in accordance with it

Abetter way of saying that is "The only way to prove a theory is to not disprove it"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Abetter way of saying that is "The only way to prove a theory is to not disprove it"

Yes, but it doesn't mean that theory becomes reality, like many people think. We should always be aware that real are ONLY facts, that is what we perceive.

2 Replies

@Eudaimon,

Not only does your English suck, your understanding of science is laughable. You're in the wrong sad box, little boy.

0 Replies

@Eudaimon,

Eudaimon wrote:

farmerman wrote:

Abetter way of saying that is "The only way to prove a theory is to not disprove it"

Yes, but it doesn't mean that theory becomes reality, like many people think. We should always be aware that real are ONLY facts, that is what we perceive.

This is fine as an approach to metaphysical debate. In everyday life, however, it would be foolish to dismiss facts or the theories that provide explanations of facts.

1 Reply

@Eudaimon,

Thats a fine point on the knife. If a theory is consistently of utility and all predictions follow and All posed experiments and data follow the theory, then Id say it was reality.
I wouldnt try to posit an infinitely small occurence frequency as a problem to reality. Maybe thats what the CReationists need to keep themselves from total despair.
(one of my past sermons was that bopth ID and Creationism are based upon despair)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Yes--and "whistling in the dark" is based on despair too and there are as many ways of whistling in the dark as there are people and if they are all following a different notation we get a cacophony. An indecipherable confusion. All forms of escapism are based on despair.

How do you disprove the statement that there is no exterior reality?

1 Reply

@spendius,

How about "dancing in the rain?"

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It's one way. I would give it a go with Debbie Reynold myself. As she then was I mean.

There's a book written by an American lady which features an animal which can only get relief from despair by copulating and making more like itself.

I read a review of it but I didn't read the book.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

This is fine as an approach to metaphysical debate. In everyday life, however, it would be foolish to dismiss facts or the theories that provide explanations of facts.

You see, everyday life can be explained in many ways. Materialists try to explain life in terms of their own theories. For example, our feelings are thought to be the result of certain "natural processes". This is fine when it is used for medical utilities but when they start searching for explanation of our feelings in cobwebs of evolution, organic molecules, sexual instinct, electrical impulses and say that THIS IS HOW THE THINGS REALLY ARE, I can't agree. Materialism devalues our human existence, it maintains that we all are egoists with our bestial desires and our nobleness is but a result of cowardice. This is what I disagree with.
Can't you see contradiction here? Those feelings of soul, let us call them that way: love, hatred, compassion, joy, sorrow, are not less real than sight, hearing, touch.
Therefore when we become aware of how we mistake theory for reality, we can at last trust ourselves, our senses. We can see that there is perhaps something more in us than struggle for survival. In the end I should like to remember an old Chan (Zen) saying:

Quote:

Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters.

Seems, most of us still see that "mountains are not mountains"...

1 Reply

@Eudaimon,

There are things in our world view that necessarily requires us to learn from our environment. Although individual perceptions of reality can differ, there are matters that most can agree upon. That includes who our family and friends are, and how we view our reality. These are givens that do not change over time or cultures.

Science provides us with knowledge about our environment that are usually based on facts and evidence. We can rely on their descriptions and analysis, because they can be replicated to prove what they claim. There are many proofs for evolution based on the many sciences we humans rely on.

The only questions we humans have are our emotions, and how we react to love, politics, religion, and other matters of the heart. Humans are aggressive animals that justifies killing and maiming of other humans based on ideology, politics, and what we see as dementia in individuals.

Most cultures understand these human failings, and establish laws to keep the majority in line to prevent chaos. Crime and punishment are practiced by most cultures.

1 Reply

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know