MechanicPig45 wrote:
Ignorance is NOT bliss
For those who like to pretend that they have all the answers, it is.
Controversial Topic (Creation vs Evolution 2?)
Sort:
Not you lol
0
#1144
GRANDMASTER_100 escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
GRANDMASTER_100 escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
GRANDMASTER_100 escribió:
Regarding the other video, I can only say that bold claims requier bold evidence and that evidence should be published in peer reviewed journals instead of a politically biased "institution" that invites people without expertise on the topic to talk about it.
This post encompasses the concept of ignorance. You refuse to watch the video and then suggest that the evidence isn't published in peer reviewed journals and that those guys do not have expertise on the topic that they were invited to talk about. Give me a break.
An interview with a bunch of irrelevant people is simply not evidence, period.
Irrelevant to who? You? Were you expecting Charles Darwin himself to be there?
Irrelevant to anybody because they are not experts.
0
#1145
GRANDMASTER_100 escribió:
Just realised the theory of evolution is circular reasoning, in that evidence for it is interpreted as supporting evolution, but evolution is required to interpret the evidence. Lol
Ermm, no.
For example, geological strata are 'dated' through the fossils that they hold, but fossils are in turn dated by the strata that they are in.
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
S for super-filler God of gaps. Also, a symbiotic relationship doesn't mean the organism can't live without his partner, it only means they have an easier life.
Then, according to natural selection, the organism would be subjected to negative selection pressures that can have a negative impact on their survival, right?
0
#1148
GRANDMASTER_100 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
@GRANDMASTER_100, do you acknowledge that the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that evolution is a fact of biology?
Yes, I do. Ever heard of mathematical biology? It examines the mathematical representations of biological systems and is a crucial aspect of better understanding the natural world. This includes the formulation of mathematical models, which can be used to predict or describe natural occurrences in a wide variety of useful ways. (Not my words)
Well at least that’s something. So the worlds foremost experts have an overwhelming consensus on a conclusion, but they are all wrong?
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
E for ew, another watchmaker analogy. I already debunked that.
Please do it again then. Also, you are picking bits of information that you don't like or agree with and are ignoring the rest that you can't refute...cool
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
GRANDMASTER_100 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
@GRANDMASTER_100, do you acknowledge that the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that evolution is a fact of biology?
Yes, I do. Ever heard of mathematical biology? It examines the mathematical representations of biological systems and is a crucial aspect of better understanding the natural world. This includes the formulation of mathematical models, which can be used to predict or describe natural occurrences in a wide variety of useful ways. (Not my words)
Well at least that’s something. So the worlds for most experts have an overwhelming consensus on a conclusion, but they are all wrong?
Did you even read what I put there? Yes evolution is a fact of biology and mathematical biology, which is preeminent in the video that you guys won't watch, is a branch of biology.
0
#1151
GRANDMASTER_100 escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
S for super-filler God of gaps. Also, a symbiotic relationship doesn't mean the organism can't live without his partner, it only means they have an easier life.
Then, according to natural selection, the organism would be subjected to negative selection pressures that can have a negative impact on their survival, right?
No, you can go from good to better.
0
#1152
GRANDMASTER_100 escribió:
For example, geological strata are 'dated' through the fossils that they hold, but fossils are in turn dated by the strata that they are in.
Wrong again, strata are dated by their depth and radiological samples.
0
#1153
GRANDMASTER_100 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
GRANDMASTER_100 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
@GRANDMASTER_100, do you acknowledge that the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that evolution is a fact of biology?
Yes, I do. Ever heard of mathematical biology? It examines the mathematical representations of biological systems and is a crucial aspect of better understanding the natural world. This includes the formulation of mathematical models, which can be used to predict or describe natural occurrences in a wide variety of useful ways. (Not my words)
Well at least that’s something. So the worlds for most experts have an overwhelming consensus on a conclusion, but they are all wrong?
Did you even read what I put there? Yes evolution is a fact of biology and mathematical biology, which is preeminent in the video that you guys won't watch, is a branch of biology.
Now I’m confused. You don’t deny evolution is a real fact of biology?
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
GRANDMASTER_100 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
GRANDMASTER_100 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
@GRANDMASTER_100, do you acknowledge that the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that evolution is a fact of biology?
Yes, I do. Ever heard of mathematical biology? It examines the mathematical representations of biological systems and is a crucial aspect of better understanding the natural world. This includes the formulation of mathematical models, which can be used to predict or describe natural occurrences in a wide variety of useful ways. (Not my words)
Well at least that’s something. So the worlds for most experts have an overwhelming consensus on a conclusion, but they are all wrong?
Did you even read what I put there? Yes evolution is a fact of biology and mathematical biology, which is preeminent in the video that you guys won't watch, is a branch of biology.
Now I’m confused. You don’t deny evolution is a real fact of biology?
Lol I was just using the words you used. Evolution is a matter of biology, that's what you mean, isn't it?
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
GRANDMASTER_100 escribió:
For example, geological strata are 'dated' through the fossils that they hold, but fossils are in turn dated by the strata that they are in.
Wrong again, strata are dated by their depth and radiological samples.
Ok.
0
#1156
GRANDMASTER_100 escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
E for ew, another watchmaker analogy. I already debunked that.
Please do it again then. Also, you are picking bits of information that you don't like or agree with and are ignoring the rest that you can't refute...cool
I have refuted the important bits, I can't debunk all the things you say because you say too many wrong things!
The watchmaker analogy is victim of the false analogy fallacy:
-A watch is complex.
-A watch had a designer.
-The universe is complex.
-Therefore, the universe has a designer.
The argument doesn't justify why the sharing of complexity implies the sharing of other qualities and applying the same argument to other things results in absurdities, for example:
-The watch is made in 15th century.
-The watch is complex,
-The universe is complex.
-Therefore, the universe was made on the 15th century.
There are many other issues but that's the most relevant one and it only takes one fallacy to debunk an argument.
0
#1157
GRANDMASTER_100 wrote:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
S for super-filler God of gaps. Also, a symbiotic relationship doesn't mean the organism can't live without his partner, it only means they have an easier life.
Then, according to natural selection, the organism would be subjected to negative selection pressures that can have a negative impact on their survival, right?
Negative selection pressures is kind of a nonsensical concept. Let me break it down into its simplest forms. I think we all agree that the offspring of animals take on the traits of their parents. Just take a random carnivorous species of animal as an example. Those who are too slow to catch prey tends not to live very long. Those that are fast enough tend to live long enough to breed, passing on those beneficial genetic traits. You can now expand that concept to other traits that affect survival rates, from blending into the environment, to being able to handle particular climate conditions, to their ability to hold breath, etc.
Now when you introduce changes to the environment, it may end up killing off a species, which happens quite frequently. But also, a particular species may adapt through natural selection after enough generations have been spawned.
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
GRANDMASTER_100 escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
E for ew, another watchmaker analogy. I already debunked that.
Please do it again then. Also, you are picking bits of information that you don't like or agree with and are ignoring the rest that you can't refute...cool
I have refuted the important bits, I can't debunk all the things you say because you say too many wrong things!
The watchmaker analogy is victim of the false analogy fallacy:
-A watch is complex.
-A watch had a designer.
-The universe is complex.
-Therefore, the universe has a designer.
The argument doesn't justify why the sharing of complexity implies the sharing of other qualities and applying the same argument to other things results in absurdities, for example:
-The watch is made in 15th century.
-The watch is complex,
-The universe is complex.
-Therefore, the universe was made on the 15th century.
There are many other issues but that's the most relevant one and it only takes one fallacy to debunk an argument.
I say too many wrong things? Apart from the one that I just said ok to, please provide me with instances of my many wrong statements. Plus most of what I have supplied you with are not my own, I made to sure to clarify that.
And when did you refute why the lack of transitional fossils does not bode well for evolution or why the law of biogenesis provides a dilemma with regard to initial reproduction or why evolution cannot account for the obvious complexity of the universe?
What you have provided here are syllogisms. That argument serves to indicate that intricate complexity without a transitional subject (in this case fossils) suggests that there needs to be a designer.
0
#1159
There is an abundance of transitional fossils. You need to start reading actual science publications.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_03
0
#1160
GRANDMASTER_100 escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
GRANDMASTER_100 escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
E for ew, another watchmaker analogy. I already debunked that.
Please do it again then. Also, you are picking bits of information that you don't like or agree with and are ignoring the rest that you can't refute...cool
I have refuted the important bits, I can't debunk all the things you say because you say too many wrong things!
The watchmaker analogy is victim of the false analogy fallacy:
-A watch is complex.
-A watch had a designer.
-The universe is complex.
-Therefore, the universe has a designer.
The argument doesn't justify why the sharing of complexity implies the sharing of other qualities and applying the same argument to other things results in absurdities, for example:
-The watch is made in 15th century.
-The watch is complex,
-The universe is complex.
-Therefore, the universe was made on the 15th century.
There are many other issues but that's the most relevant one and it only takes one fallacy to debunk an argument.
I say too many wrong things? Apart from the one that I just said ok to, please provide me with instances of my many wrong statements. Plus most of what I have supplied you with are not my own, I made to sure to clarify that.
And when did you refute why the lack of transitional fossils does not bode well for evolution or why the law of biogenesis provides a dilemma with regard to initial reproduction or why evolution cannot account for the obvious complexity of the universe?
What you have provided here are syllogisms. That argument serves to indicate that intricate complexity without a transitional subject (in this case fossils) suggests that there needs to be a designer.
I get tyred to speak to the deaf man, that's all.
@GRANDMASTER_100, do you acknowledge that the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that evolution is a fact of biology?
Yes, I do. Ever heard of mathematical biology? It examines the mathematical representations of biological systems and is a crucial aspect of better understanding the natural world. This includes the formulation of mathematical models, which can be used to predict or describe natural occurrences in a wide variety of useful ways. (Not my words)