Irony of the evolutionary belief

[SkepticThinker]

And I just saw a funny cartoon with fish emerging out of water turning into landlubber saying are we there yet?

Was it a mudskipper?

 

[gnostic]

What is locally necessary?

Between his cheeks?

I'd guess it depends on which cheeks are you talking about ?

 

[Pogo]

I'd guess it depends on which cheeks are you talking about ?

Collinearity?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Occaisionally, somebody will make some silly statement attacking string theory, and ready to throw it into the trashbin of history.

But it doesn’t matter. It’s had an impact on mathematics, so at worse string theory will be banished to the math department.

We take discards from other subjects on occasion when other folks get tired of them.

So you can think of math departments as the trashbin of history, I suppose.

We don’t care if it’s fantasy. That’s somebody else’s obsession, not ours.

Bohemian Gravity | A Capella Science​

At least it isn't the gravel pit.

 

[F1fan]

Well, I am not a theist.
But I am aware that science is based on axiomatic assupmtions without evidence themselves as for the concepts of evidence and naturalism.

Feel free to expose these axioms that lack evidence, and how it is a problem for science working.

And in effect I get that you do pjilosophy in part and are not aware of that.

What I notice is that science hasn't come to a complete stop due to some philosophical idea that you value.

In short you do a version of realism for which you give no evidence for it. Just as some theists give no evidence for god.

If realism is problematic, what word explains your cognitive experiences? You are responding to me and others, and if this isn't some sort of realism, what is it?

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, real has not objective external sensory experince. It is in your mind just like God.

So you having inner dialog, and being aware of experiences like a serious toothache, is no different than imagining literary characters that aren't known to exist?

If you are walking down a street and some stranger jumps in front of you and points a gun at you, you have no reaction whatsoever because you don't have objective external expriences?

Do you reject the electrochemical processes of nerves and the central nervous system and the brain? At what point do you acknowledge what is real, and what isn't?

That is how simple your belief system is.

If you deny objective external expriences perhaps you are imagining what my belief system is. Remember, it's you struggling with discerning reality.

Now how I cope in my life, is different than you do to our brains being different in effect. That even has a namr and that is neurodiversity.

There could be different traits due to evolution. But I find it hard to believe that those who are attracted to believe in certain ideas still can't learn to recognize their limitation and reasoning sabotage.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

If realism is problematic, what word explains your cognitive experiences? You are responding to me and others, and if this isn't some sort of realism, what is it?

I know that I'm getting into something that I don't have time to really deal with, but it is difficult to resist asking about what extent you accept my own cognitive experiences, and how this level of acceptance (or lack thereof) might effect your level of willingness to use my cognitive experiences as a basis of argument.

 

[Valjean]

Well from my view, you're absolutely lost in confusion as every point you made is false and none of them can be backed by any valid or credible evidence. It's astounding to me that someone would so vehemently defend theories which were debunked centuries ago. I really don't know if anyone is ever going to reach you with the facts as it's bleeding obvious that you're not equipped to handle them.

I'm not confused. What points have I made that are false? What debunked theories have I promoted?
What are these "facts" that are so bleeding obvious?

 

[Valjean]

I have put my house where my mouth is, I've been waiting for a single shred of evidence to support this theory you believe in and yet the silence remains deafening

What theory are you referring to?

 

[Valjean]

I'm actually saying that "the theory of evolution" as a whole has been debunked long ago. No evidence has ever been found to support the theory but plenty of damning evidence has been found to dismiss it as a false theory, yet nobody has ever stepped up to defend the charges so the theory remains dead in the water with nothing to revive it.

???????????
The ToE is probably the most extensively and and consiliently evidenced theory in all of science. How has it been debunked? Further support is provided with every edition of every biology journal on Earth.
It is the definition of a robust theory.
What alternative "explanations" are there? What empirical evidence supports them?

 

[Valjean]

Yer, Nah all of that is pure fantasy. None of it is supported by anything apart from you're imagination. I need proof beyond reasonable doubt and with all due respect your imagination proves noting.

The evidence is overwhelming; nor are there any credible 'alternative' explanations.

 

[Valjean]

Yer, Nah all of that is pure fantasy. None of it is supported by anything apart from you're imagination. I need proof beyond reasonable doubt and with all due respect your imagination proves noting.

Proof of what -- that evolution is evidenced? How can you be unaware of the evidence, without deliberately hiding your head in the sand? The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Proof of what -- that evolution is evidenced? How can you be unaware of the evidence, without deliberately hiding your head in the sand? The evidence is overwhelming.

Well, there is a difference between methodlogical and philsophical naturalism.
And the same with the different versions of science for what evidence is.

So how do you do that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yer, Nah all of that is pure fantasy. None of it is supported by anything apart from you're imagination. I need proof beyond reasonable doubt and with all due respect your imagination proves noting.

Yeah, you won't get that from me, because I doubt so much that I don't believe in proof in any positve sense. So we do doubt differently.

 

[Eli G]

If the postulates of the evolution of species were true, there would no longer be more than a few animal species on earth, because most of them would have become extinct, killing each other to survive. The entire surface of the planet would not be enough for a fight between all species. So it is logical to deduce that, as the Bible says, they were created from the beginning with instincts already recorded in their genes that allowed them to adapt to their own particular environment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the postulates of the evolution of species were true, there would no longer be more than a few animal species on earth, because most of them would have become extinct, killing each other to survive. The entire surface of the planet would not be enough for a fight between all species. So it is logical to deduce that, as the Bible says, they were created from the beginning with instincts already recorded in their genes that allowed them to adapt to their own particular environment.

That might be true if there were only one universal environment the whole world wide. Do you think the the environment on top of Mt. Everest is the same as at the bottom of the oceans?

 

[Eli G]

If, as the defenders of the evolutionary doctrine say, all living beings arose from a common ancestor... as the saying goes: "there is no room for so many people."

 

[Subduction Zone]

If, as the defenders of the evolutionary doctrine say, all living beings arose from a common ancestor... as the saying goes: "there is no room for so many people."

Such incredible ignorance. He seems to believe that conditions are the same at the top of Mt Everest to the bottom of the Marianas Trench. Make sure that you are wearing at least two oven mitts.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It wasn't a case of me refusing to listen to the professor. It was rather a case of not subjecting myself to have my intelligence raped. I do listen if someone has something sensible to share with me, but I refuse to subject myself to mental abuse.

Not having your "intelligence raped." No, you are not subjecting yourself to learning. If you assume you know what is sensible before you listen to it, then you've defined resistance to learning.

 

[F1fan]

If, as the defenders of the evolutionary doctrine say, all living beings arose from a common ancestor... as the saying goes: "there is no room for so many people."

Why should we take your belief over the conclusions of experts? You never give us a reason to trust your beliefs.