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

@Chights47,

Chightie--I have seven years of form with these guys and they have such as sense of self-importance that it is worthy of a scientific study. They are adamant about everything as a result. Not being would challenge that sense of self importance and it is ingrained.

They can't argue evolution from the scientific side because they haven't a scientific bone in their bodies. They have an agenda. Evolution is just the crowbar. They are, as you explain, walking, talking circularities. They define the "real world", as we saw, in such a way that it only encompasses what they want it to. So within that circle they are perfectly logical. Outside of it they go whooosey and indignant and noisy.

You must be quite esteemed actually for one of them to alter their story to get rid of you. They tell me straight out to get lost. Regularly.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

That's just another example of simple and obvious banalities dressed up a bit for consumption by an audience of 12 year olds. It says nothing of interest. We already know Darwin was a bit of a gump.

Quote:

We can be blind to any subject and at some point we make the connection that these pieces of evidence lying around, begin to fit together in some fashion, the explanation of which, we gradually develop.

That applies when we have lost our keys or when doing a jigsaw.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Just try to compose a rational argument re evolution spendi. We are all aware about how smart you "believe" you are.

I , for one, am waiting for the day that you show us .

I suspect that a mostly irrelevant and fatuous reference to Thorsten Veblen will be coming on.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Well, as I see it, within our own consciousness, everything we know (including evolution), comes from nothing. Without a consciousness, there wouldn't be any specifications, classifications, ideas, anything. Everything would basically amount to a maximum or "it" and that's all. With this in mind, there is really only 1 way to construct these beliefs. That would be to perceive and experience it, whether you do it directly, or though someone else (as in their research or their explaination of it). I think that we can all agree, that everyone perceives and experiences things differently, and that we cannot perceive and experience everything thing that has happened, is happening, and will happen. Because of that, we have to rely on the perceptions and experiences of others. There's also nothing in which can accurately keep our perceptions "in check" because it's so chaotically expanded. Our perceptions can also never be changed, they can only be gradually altered through new perceptions and experiences. I state this because when someone accepts something you perceived, they only mildly understand, but don't believe it as you do, because you can't properly convey it to them.

1 Reply

@Chights47,

This smacks of sophistry to me. Your argument that there is no proof for evolution is that we can't really know anything?

Do you suffer cognitive dissonance when you fly on a plane? Or duck when you hear gunfire? You appear mired in a sophomoric philosophical argument. Sure you can't know anything or trust anyone else's perceptions. But try running your life like that.

Move this discussion to the philosophy forum if you please.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I thought he was getting better with experience with The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals and The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

Quote:

You appear mired in a sophomoric philosophical argument.

That's your perception hinge. It isn't mine. "Appearing" mired in a sophomoric philosophical argument is not the same as being mired in a sophomoric philosophical argument. In fact, as an argument, your's is definitely a sophomoric philosophical argument. First week.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Yoou actually understand through evidence

In my post I actually meant "you" in a general sense. I do understand this theory I'm presenting through evidence. You build off "evidence" while I retrace that evidence...I found that every bit of scientific evidence, if traced back far enough, has an end that can't be explained. There is always this unexplainable, invisible, impenetrable barrier...and I do mean every bit scientific evidence, you name it and I can find that "void".

farmerman wrote:

We can be blind to any subject and at some point we make the connection that these pieces of evidence lying around, begin to fit together in some fashion, the explanation of which, we gradually develop.
Quote:

All the "fitting together" that you're talking about is still "above" what I'm talking about. Evidence doesn't just lie around, the things lie around, and actions happen. By perceiving them, we create that evidence.

farmerman wrote:
Also, remember, the primary definition of "belief" is an acceptance by faith.

I'm not arguing that, I actually completely agree. It's the actual truth of the matter. In this case, it would be whether evolution is the actual answer, rather than people believing and thinking that it is...there's a difference.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

This smacks of sophistry to me. Your argument that there is no proof for evolution is that we can't really know anything?

...Your ignorance of my statement is astounding...In the words of your "friend" Tim Minchin "that's just ******* silly". Of course we know things, that's not the problem in the least, it's just that since everyone has different perceptions, how are we to know which perception is correct? For millennia people have been trying to disprove the Christian Bible...but guess what...it's still around, and there are literally billions of people that believe it, and you can't say that it's all stupid people that don't know any better. There have been people that have gone to great lengths to try to disprove the Bible, and there have been devout believers that have become leading atheists.

1 Reply

@Chights47,

fm only does the evidence that he chooses to do. Trace his reasons back far enough and I'll bet there's a sexual source. I find it hard to believe that it was his Mom putting his toys back into his playpen every time he threw them out as some Freudians think.

0 Replies

@Chights47,

So glad to have astounded you.

You confuse perception with testable reproducable evidence. Equating belief in the bible to 'belief' in evolution is 'just ******* silly' as my friend Tim Minchin says. He also said that science changes in response to evidence but religious belief denies evidence to maintain faith.

This isn't about 'disproving' the bible, it's about the evidence for evolution. I don't see the two as related at all - except in the perceptions of some who apparently have fragile self identity (believers and nonbelievers alike).

1 Reply

The bible is full of so many preposterous claims, and the burden of proof is on anyone making the claims--no one is obliged to disprove the claims.

Of course, the subject of this thread is proof, proof for evolution. The subject is not the "disproof" of anything.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

You confuse perception with testable reproducable evidence.

...wow, you're on a roll...how were those tests created, huh? How do you test the accuracy of those test? If you can test the accuracy of those test, then how do you test those test? If you can test the accuracy of those test, then how do you test those test? If you can test the accuracy of those test, then how do you test those test? If you can test the accuracy of those test, then how do you test those test?...and you get the idea, it seems as if you don't actually know the difference between perception and "testable reproducable evidence".

The only thing that the same about the belief in the bible and the belief in evolution, is that they are both belief's...which is pretty much the foundation of my whole argument.

hingehead wrote:

He also said that science changes in response to evidence but religious belief denies evidence to maintain faith

The only way I know to describe this is oil and water and how they don't mix. Scientific evidence doesn't have any affect on the "ethereal" (not aura's and talking to the dead and all that crap). My example for this, was emotion. It's an ethereal thing in which science can't comprehend. It can comprehend the physiological aspect (such as a smile means happy), but not the specific emotional side. The same as with the faith in the Bible.

hingehead wrote:

This isn't about 'disproving' the bible, it's about the evidence for evolution. I don't see the two as related at all.

You're talking about evidence for evolution...you said it yourself...I'm talking about that evidence...all evidence in fact. The bases of all thought, belief, and everything, even including every pathetic idea you have to try and belittle my argument in which you obviously can't comprehend. It doesn't matter what I relate it to, any idea, theory, belief anything, would be realted to what I'm talking about. I chose disproving the Bible because, by a vast majority of people, it's considered the opposite. Christianity is one of the most dominate faiths, while evolution is one of the most dominate beliefs in science.

2 Replies

@Chights47,

Chights47 wrote:

The only thing that the same about the belief in the bible and the belief in evolution, is that they are both belief's...which is pretty much the foundation of my whole argument.

Most of us recognized a long time ago that there is not much more to your argument than "they are both belief's."

0 Replies

@Chights47,

Quote:

The bases of all thought, belief, and everything, even including every pathetic idea you have to try and belittle my argument in which you obviously can't comprehend.

Pot.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The bible is full of so many preposterous claims, and the burden of proof is on anyone making the claims--no one is obliged to disprove the claims.

Of course, the subject of this thread is proof, proof for evolution. The subject is not the "disproof" of anything.

What do you use to prove or disprove anything? Evidence, which is what I'm talking about, I tangented to the Bible to make a small point, not to stir up any point discussions. I personally think that Christianity (especially the catholic branch) so be incredibly silly...I don't argue it though because I know I can't and I actually am not arguing any specific belief.

1 Reply

@Chights47,

I note that you have completely avoided the point of what the thread is concerned with. I don't give a rat's ass what your beliefs are, and this thread is not about belief.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

That you choose to offer the opinion that criticism is insult doesn't make it so. If you offer the opinion that the world is flat, you shouldn't be surprised if no one takes you seriously. You are actually reacting to the severe criticisms i offered for your goofy claims about democracy, and now you've got a chip on your shoulder. It is clear to me that you consider criticism to be insult, and i therefore infer that you are unable to accept criticism, and take offense to it.

wow. its pathetic how you seem to project your pissiness onto other people. i think your still sore from that ass-whupping my ignorant stubbornness gave you. also, your leaping to conclusions, which is a big mistake, even for one so INTELLECTUAL as you. as to the fact its clear to you that i consider a criticism an insult, bullshit. if you want to know why, ask your self. "was it necessary to say 'stupid'?" pointing out someones ignorance and not doing anything about fixing it puts you down lower than those youve just "severely criticized"(called silly, stupid, absurd, the list goes on and on...).

1 Reply

@hamilton,

You couldn't asswhip your way out of an argument with an elementary school child of average intelligence. But if it flatters your poor battered ego to believe that, far be it from me to take away your security blanket. Will you please point out to me where i said that anyone in this thread is stupid?

Once again, i am under no obligation to "fix" your ignorance. I'm not your teacher, and i'm not obliged to be.

1 Reply

I see a good deal of your problem, though. Saying that an idea of yours is absurd is not to say that you are absurd. It is incredibly naïve to believe that you can post your ideas in an online forum and that no one is entitled to point out that your ideas are absurd.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know