Answering the baptists and others on evolution

[sonofskeptish]

But will the willfully ignorant ever turn into the informed?

Nope... ignorance is required to maintain ones faith.

 

[Valjean]

Hard to talk someone out of an idee fixe. Faith, by definition is a belief without evidence. Unlike empirical knowledge it's notoriously resistant to contrary facts or reason. For many it's just not falsifiable at all.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

"Let's face facts, Evolution is the modern religion. It has its own rites, rituals and traditions and try debating it with an adherent, they can be twice as fanatic as any suicide bomber.

It has its own rites and rituals? Huh, must've missed out on those during all the evolutionary biology lectures. I guess it must consist of hailing a picture of Darwin and his books.

It has its own faith based decisions, buildings of worship, fanatical followers (as I mentioned earlier), and even religious clerics who will call out fatwā against unbelievers.

Buildings of worship? I find it interesting how a non-religious concept can apparently have a building to be religious worshiped in. Seems to me like something is wrong here and I think the problem is that the author of this letter either doesn't know what a building of worship is meant for or they don't know what evolution (and I'm willing to bet science in general) is. For reasons seen below, I'm going with the second one.

Even your question begs the religious nature of Evolutionary theory. "Can Evolution explain God?", evolution has become personified and elevated in your question itself. Evolutionary theory is an explanation without ultimate proof because it can't be tested.

Why is it that those who are so devoted in their religion try to refute one of the greatest non-religious forces (science) without even having a clue what it is they're trying to refute. I never could understand that. It's like blindly shooting an arrow in the dark and guessing the arrow hit something, and then conclude that what it hit was the exact thing you were aiming for.

Deductive reasoning, effectively the Scientific method, requires testing to bring a theory into truth. You can't test it so it remains faith based.

Note the two words: scientific theory. One great thing about this is that a) it must be testable and falifiable and b) evolution is one. But I guess it cant be testable :sarcastic.

Let's try another question, can God explain evolutionary theory? Yeah its called the Book of Judges, in short, "...They remain without a King and everyone did what was right in their own eyes." Evolutionary theory is a dodge from those who don't want to adhere to a God who created them and they are responsible....

Wow. Now this is truly amazing. Science cannot in any way shape or form explain god but of course god can explain science. The two have two completely different paradigms but when it's god's side doing the explaining, these paradigms sort of get bent around to no longer resemble themselves and then it's concluded that through all the twisting, turning and contorting, the unidentifiable mess that's left behind is what god has explained. It's not evolutionary theory dodging a question, it's the author dodging a science book so they can look up just what they're trying to refute. Apparently they're doing a very good job at dodging.

One again the adherents strike back. Ever heard of Paradigm theory vs. Natural Selection or the canard amongst Intellectual Designers that "every time an evolutionary precept goes bust just add a few billion years to the universes age." Evolution is not substantiated at all. Many noted mathematicians, physicists, astrophysicists, cosomologists and others of the "hard sciences" are hotly debating the palentologists, biologists and anthropoligists who still rabidly hold to evolutionary theory.

Hold on. A mathematician is debating the intricate workings of evolutionary theory? Assuming this mathematician is sticking to their field of study, why are they refuting evolutionary theory? It's like me, having little skill in computer science going up to a computer programmer or computer scientist and pointing out some code and yelling that it's wrong.

You can't test it. It would take too many years to really test how one species can turn into another. Microevolution, adaptations within species, is an accepted fact but macroevolution is still just theory.

Ah yes, the famous refute for anything scientific: it's still just a theory. Well, that's what science is about, just as religion is about faith. I suppose if I were to mention to a devoted religious person that their religious statements are just faith, then maybe that would be equivalent? Well, we'll leave that experiment for another day.

Understanding and articles written and people proclaiming that evolution is fact is not the same as proof no matter how many letters come behind their names."

It seems as though anytime someone says "[insert scientific theory] is not factual" isn't using the definition scientists use of what a fact is. The scientific definition is in regards to evolution, perhaps the theory is indeed false, however, nothing has managed a quasi-successful attempt at refuting it, and so it's the closest thing so far to being factual.

A dog will never turn into a cat.
A horse will never turn into a cow.

And your argument will never turn into anything more than a strawman. But the great thing about this format of your argument is you can use it endlessly! Of course, the quantity won't matter, it's still a pathetically weak strawman.

 

[challupa]

It has its own rites and rituals? Huh, must've missed out on those during all the evolutionary biology lectures. I guess it must consist of hailing a picture of Darwin and his books.



Buildings of worship? I find it interesting how a non-religious concept can apparently have a building to be religious worshiped in. Seems to me like something is wrong here and I think the problem is that the author of this letter either doesn't know what a building of worship is meant for or they don't know what evolution (and I'm willing to bet science in general) is. For reasons seen below, I'm going with the second one.



Why is it that those who are so devoted in their religion try to refute one of the greatest non-religious forces (science) without even having a clue what it is they're trying to refute. I never could understand that. It's like blindly shooting an arrow in the dark and guessing the arrow hit something, and then conclude that what it hit was the exact thing you were aiming for.



Note the two words: scientific theory. One great thing about this is that a) it must be testable and falifiable and b) evolution is one. But I guess it cant be testable :sarcastic.



Wow. Now this is truly amazing. Science cannot in any way shape or form explain god but of course god can explain science. The two have two completely different paradigms but when it's god's side doing the explaining, these paradigms sort of get bent around to no longer resemble themselves and then it's concluded that through all the twisting, turning and contorting, the unidentifiable mess that's left behind is what god has explained. It's not evolutionary theory dodging a question, it's the author dodging a science book so they can look up just what they're trying to refute. Apparently they're doing a very good job at dodging.



Hold on. A mathematician is debating the intricate workings of evolutionary theory? Assuming this mathematician is sticking to their field of study, why are they refuting evolutionary theory? It's like me, having little skill in computer science going up to a computer programmer or computer scientist and pointing out some code and yelling that it's wrong.



Ah yes, the famous refute for anything scientific: it's still just a theory. Well, that's what science is about, just as religion is about faith. I suppose if I were to mention to a devoted religious person that their religious statements are just faith, then maybe that would be equivalent? Well, we'll leave that experiment for another day.



It seems as though anytime someone says "[insert scientific theory] is not factual" isn't using the definition scientists use of what a fact is. The scientific definition is in regards to evolution, perhaps the theory is indeed false, however, nothing has managed a quasi-successful attempt at refuting it, and so it's the closest thing so far to being factual.



And your argument will never turn into anything more than a strawman. But the great thing about this format of your argument is you can use it endlessly! Of course, the quantity won't matter, it's still a pathetically weak strawman.

But... they have such good reasons for believing this. Check this dissertation out!!
http://sebso.de/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

But... they have such good reasons for believing this. Check this dissertation out!!
http://sebso.de/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf

I couldn't keep a straight face when he mentions he'll discuss the creationism-evolutionary controversy because it's like comparing 2 things, only he has no clue what 1/2 the two things are :biglaugh:. He then says evolution is NOT a science but rather a religion and so should be excluded from public schools, although I'm willing to bet that the religion of Christianity is perfectly suitable to be taught in public schools. Nice double-standard. It gets pathetic as he tries to use the first and second laws of thermodynamics to show how evolution is not possible and through some magical reasoning, a creator is present. Apparently he missed the lecture on that evolution is not driving towards increasing simplicity nor complexity. I got to the 10th page and had to stop to wipe my eyes from the laughter. Seriously, this guy hasn't a clue what the hell science is, what evolution is, what thermodynamics is, etc... . I'm saving the rest of this gem of nonsense to use as jokes because other than going straight to the trash, that's all it's worth. You know, I'm half-willing to bet that since evolution is apparently a religion, I wonder if he knows what the generally-accepted definition of a religion is in the first place.

I seal my stamp of approval for EPIC FAIL. :biglaugh:

 

[Autodidact]

A dog will never turn into a cat.
A horse will never turn into a cow.

You're right. Just as the Theory of Evolution (ToE) predicts, this will never happen. So I gather you're arguing in favor of ToE here? Or is it that you have no idea what it says?

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

You're right. Just as the Theory of Evolution (ToE) predicts, this will never happen. So I gather you're arguing in favor of ToE here? Or is it that you have no idea what it says?

I think it's a bit of both, not knowing what it says and gathering support for what one doesn't understand. Not sure if he/she should get a FAIL or get a SUCCESS. I'm going with FAIL though.

 

[Autodidact]

Sure they do. I have a border collie. When I watch TV, he brings me his rubber bone and I throw it for him, over and over and over. Occasionally, I can bounce it off the front door and make it go down the hallway, which causes the dog to have to round the corner. Sometimes, there's a cat sitting there and he runs into it.

Thus, my dog sometimes turns into a cat.

And when is a hat not a hat?

 

[challupa]

I couldn't keep a straight face when he mentions he'll discuss the creationism-evolutionary controversy because it's like comparing 2 things, only he has no clue what 1/2 the two things are :biglaugh:. He then says evolution is NOT a science but rather a religion and so should be excluded from public schools, although I'm willing to bet that the religion of Christianity is perfectly suitable to be taught in public schools. Nice double-standard. It gets pathetic as he tries to use the first and second laws of thermodynamics to show how evolution is not possible and through some magical reasoning, a creator is present. Apparently he missed the lecture on that evolution is not driving towards increasing simplicity nor complexity. I got to the 10th page and had to stop to wipe my eyes from the laughter. Seriously, this guy hasn't a clue what the hell science is, what evolution is, what thermodynamics is, etc... . I'm saving the rest of this gem of nonsense to use as jokes because other than going straight to the trash, that's all it's worth. You know, I'm half-willing to bet that since evolution is apparently a religion, I wonder if he knows what the generally-accepted definition of a religion is in the first place.

I seal my stamp of approval for EPIC FAIL. :biglaugh:

I know, isn't it crazy!! I could hardly believe what he was writing. I got to the end of Chapter 1 and I am really looking forward to the chapter on dinesours and man still living on the earth to this day! Should be quite enlightening don't you think?

 

[skydivephil]

It has its own rites and rituals? Huh, must've missed out on those during all the evolutionary biology lectures. I guess it must consist of hailing a picture of Darwin and his books.



Buildings of worship? I find it interesting how a non-religious concept can apparently have a building to be religious worshiped in. Seems to me like something is wrong here and I think the problem is that the author of this letter either doesn't know what a building of worship is meant for or they don't know what evolution (and I'm willing to bet science in general) is. For reasons seen below, I'm going with the second one.



Why is it that those who are so devoted in their religion try to refute one of the greatest non-religious forces (science) without even having a clue what it is they're trying to refute. I never could understand that. It's like blindly shooting an arrow in the dark and guessing the arrow hit something, and then conclude that what it hit was the exact thing you were aiming for.



Note the two words: scientific theory. One great thing about this is that a) it must be testable and falifiable and b) evolution is one. But I guess it cant be testable :sarcastic.



Wow. Now this is truly amazing. Science cannot in any way shape or form explain god but of course god can explain science. The two have two completely different paradigms but when it's god's side doing the explaining, these paradigms sort of get bent around to no longer resemble themselves and then it's concluded that through all the twisting, turning and contorting, the unidentifiable mess that's left behind is what god has explained. It's not evolutionary theory dodging a question, it's the author dodging a science book so they can look up just what they're trying to refute. Apparently they're doing a very good job at dodging.



Hold on. A mathematician is debating the intricate workings of evolutionary theory? Assuming this mathematician is sticking to their field of study, why are they refuting evolutionary theory? It's like me, having little skill in computer science going up to a computer programmer or computer scientist and pointing out some code and yelling that it's wrong.



Ah yes, the famous refute for anything scientific: it's still just a theory. Well, that's what science is about, just as religion is about faith. I suppose if I were to mention to a devoted religious person that their religious statements are just faith, then maybe that would be equivalent? Well, we'll leave that experiment for another day.



It seems as though anytime someone says "[insert scientific theory] is not factual" isn't using the definition scientists use of what a fact is. The scientific definition is in regards to evolution, perhaps the theory is indeed false, however, nothing has managed a quasi-successful attempt at refuting it, and so it's the closest thing so far to being factual.



And your argument will never turn into anything more than a strawman. But the great thing about this format of your argument is you can use it endlessly! Of course, the quantity won't matter, it's still a pathetically weak strawman.

Can you please not attribute text that I am debunking to me ? thanks

 

[Valjean]

A dog will never turn into a cat.
A horse will never turn into a cow.

And Latin will never turn into French...

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

Can you please not attribute text that I am debunking to me ? thanks

I never did. The only time I said "you" or "your" was when I was responding to another person. I broke it up into quotes with your name of them because you were the one who posted it but I'll edit it and remove your name from each of those quotes.