Christians are anti-science.

[Into the Night]

Jesus Christ, it is pointless to read anything you write. You do not know jack shit about what you are talking about.

Bulverism fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Good boy, you know how to use Google and spend time reading obscure rightwing science denier blogs.

Google is not God. Science isn't Google, or any blog. It is not 'left' wing or 'right' wing. It is simply a set of falsifiable theories.

Lot's of word salad,

Inversion fallacy.

and yet not one single solitary link to a body of reputable, peer reviewed scientific literature

Science does not use consensus. It is not a book, paper, magazine, web site, university, government institution, license, degree, or even a scientist. It is not even people at all. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

showing the theory of evolution by natural selection has been falsified and debunked.

The falsification is as follows...there are two of them:
1) The existence of animals that have characteristics that do not help the animal, and in fact make it harder for them to survive.
2) If natural selection were true, it must be true at all times. That would tend to a single species or sub species. How then do you get variety to naturally select from? The Theory of Natural Selection builds a paradox. Arguing both sides of a paradox is irrational. This is a fallacy. It therefore cannot be a theory at all, much less a theory of science.

...deleted Holy Link...

Your link does not define science, nor can it overcome these falsifications. The quote you take from this Holy Link is a religious statement. The Theory of Evolution was not created by Darwin. It was created by the ancient Greeks. It first appeared in an argument made by Anaximander of Miletus some 500 years before Christ.

Darwin created the Theory of Natural Selection, which has been falsified. It is no longer a theory. It is a fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

^ Still no links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating the theory of evolution by natural selection has been debunked and falsified.

None. Science doesn't use consensus. Attempted proof by negative.

 

[Cypress]

Yes, you are an idiot. You picked Stanford who decided to take Statistics out of the Math department and to make it a separate Department owing to its applicability to virtually every other field of study. Standford could have called it the Department of Applied Mathematics but I guess they just wanted to focus on Statistics. Good for them. When one gets an undergrad degree from that department, the degree received is Mathematical and Computational Science, not Physics or Chemistry.

You do not like Stanford?

UC Berkley has a Department of Statistics too.
https://statistics.berkeley.edu/

Statistics is used in every scientific and medical discipline..

Anyone who wants a PhD in quantuum physics applies to a university Physics department, not a statistics department.

You never went to college, did you?

Wrapping up,
As an antidote to your ignorance: evolution by natural selection has been confirmed in real time in controlled laboratory conditions with fruit flies and bacterium; morphological evolutionary changes are observed in transitional fossils, and genetics have demonstrated all life evolved from a common primitive microbial origin.


I have repeatedly asked you to provide links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating the theory of evolution by natural selection has been debunked.

You have repeatedly shot blanks, and have been unable to comply with an extremely simple request.

 

[IBDaMann]

You do not like Stanford?

Actually, not much. It's a communist institution. Students graduating from Stanford have zero understanding of economics. Actually, that's a bit of an exaggeration; they know to count their change.

UC Berkley has a Department of Statistics too.

Irrelevant. You are the one who thinks it's somehow not math.

Statistics is used in every scientific and medical discipline.

Math is used in virtually everything.

Anyone who wants a PhD in quantuum physics applies to a university Physics department, not a statistics department.

They can. You're still not correct referring to statistics and probability math as "not math."

You never learned math, did you?

... evolution by natural selection has been confirmed in real time

I see that now you are taking a stab at using other words you don't understand. I'm not going to bother explaining it to you a third time. Let's just chalk it up as a success that you have found just the right delusion to take you to your happy place.

I'm happy if you're happy.

 

[Cypress]

Actually, not much. It's a communist institution. Students graduating from Stanford have zero understanding of economics. Actually, that's a bit of an exaggeration; they know to count their change.


Irrelevant. You are the one who thinks it's somehow not math.


Math is used in virtually everything.


They can. You're still not correct referring to statistics and probability math as "not math."

You never learned math, did you?


I see that now you are taking a stab at using other words you don't understand. I'm not going to bother explaining it to you a third time. Let's just chalk it up as a success that you have found just the right delusion to take you to your happy place.

I'm happy if you're happy.

Unlike you, I have actually taken college level statistics and calculus classes

I have repeatedly asked you to provide links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating the theory of evolution by natural selection has been debunked.

You have repeatedly shot blanks, and have been unable to comply with an extremely simple request.

 

[IBDaMann]

I have repeatedly asked you to provide links to blah, blah, blah

I have repeatedly asked you to read my posts but apparently the person who reads posts for you is not available and we should wait until either he returns or your mother brings a fresh batch of cookies to you down in the basement, whichever comes first.

You still don't know what "peer reviewed" means and you don't understand what you are asking. I'm guessing that someone used that line on you and you were left struggling to respond ... and now you think that by repeating that "demand" that it somehow wins you the argument.

Too funny.

Here's a link for you: https://politiplex.freeforums.net/board/14/origin-species-charles-darwin-full

Tell me what part of the theory (not observations) is falsifiable and what part of it has been falsified. The ball is in your court. Enjoy!

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I'm Catholic by virtue of my ethnicity, but that's been the only way since I was in my early teens.
Some people are simply too logical to suspend their disbelief, to embrace concepts that make no sense at all, and I'm one of them.

Being religious is no different than believing that pro wrestling is real.
You can't have a fully developed normal brain.

Perhaps it once served a purpose in the way people behaved. Certainly not anymore.
The most moral and decent people I know are secular humanists.

Evangelical Christians, even more so than Catholics, voted for the orange pigfucker.
This makes them very, very lucky that their belief in Hell is total bullshit.
Voting for Trump in 2016 would have been like making one's reservations in Hell for eternity.
Just leave your credit card number with the desk.
I almost wish it were real, because Trumpanzees certainly deserve it for what they did to humankind.

 

[Cypress]

I have repeatedly asked you to read my posts but apparently the person who reads posts for you is not available and we should wait until either he returns or your mother brings a fresh batch of cookies to you down in the basement, whichever comes first.

You still don't know what "peer reviewed" means and you don't understand what you are asking. I'm guessing that someone used that line on you and you were left struggling to respond ... and now you think that by repeating that "demand" that it somehow wins you the argument.

Too funny.

Here's a link for you: https://politiplex.freeforums.net/board/14/origin-species-charles-darwin-full

Tell me what part of the theory (not observations) is falsifiable and what part of it has been falsified. The ball is in your court. Enjoy!

I will accept your tacit admission that some major research universities actually do have Statistics Departments. That was the point - the other dummy in this thread yelled at me that universities do not have departments of Statistics

Who gives a shit what your opinion is? You do not have a PhD in biological sciences, you do not do research in evolution, and I doubt you even went to college.

Your tap dancing, dodging, and excuse making does not alter the fact all you have done is write some word salad you acquired from obscure rightwing blogs, and have been utterly unable to back your assertions up with reputable peer reviewed science.

 

[IBDaMann]

I will accept your tacit admission that some major research universities actually do have Statistics Departments. That was the point - the other dummy in this thread yelled at me that universities do not have departments of Statistics

Who gives a shit what your opinion is? You do not have a PhD in biological sciences, you do not do research in evolution, and I doubt you even went to college.

Your tap dancing, dodging, and excuse making does not alter the fact all you have done is write some word salad you acquired from obscure rightwing blogs, and have been utterly unable to back your assertions up with reputable peer reviewed science.

I'm beginning to see what passes as logic in your happy place. Do you have a point for those of us in the real world?

 

[IBDaMann]

Being religious is no different than believing that pro wrestling is real. You can't have a fully developed normal brain.

Do you believe in Global Warming? I may have some bad news for you that you just walked right into, or a corner into which you backed yourself.

 

[Cypress]

I'm beginning to see what passes as logic in your happy place. Do you have a point for those of us in the real world?

You might consider in enrolling in some community college classes in introductory biology and genetics. The information you acquired from obscure, science-denying rightwing blogs is actually making you stupider.

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm beginning to see what passes as logic in your happy place. Do you have a point for those of us in the real world?

You might consider in enrolling in some community college classes in introductory biology and genetics. The information you acquired from obscure, science-denying rightwing blogs is actually making you stupider.

I'll take that as a "No."

 

[Cypress]

The fact you have not heard of Darwin's theory of pangenesis...

Darwin never made any such theory!

"Charles Darwin's Theory of Pangenesis"
Source: Arizona State University
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/charles-darwins-theory-pangenesis

Into the Night: "There is no such thing as a 'statistics department' at a university!"

Stanford University Department of Statistics
https://statistics.stanford.edu/about/welcome

University of California Berkley Department of Statistics
https://statistics.berkeley.edu/

Into the Night: When you study quantum physics, you will be studying math, primarily probability math, but also some in statistics. It is not science!! It is math.

All branches of science, especially physics, make use of mathematics, statistics, probability.

Quantum mechanics is recognized as a field of science, specifically physics >>

"Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics relating to the very small."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html

 

[Cypress]

Darwin's theory is not falsifiable. It is not possible to falsify speculation about past events.

No. Falsifying past events is standard practice in inductive science. The big bang could have been falsifiable by a number empirical observations. Presence or lack of red shift in distant galaxy clusters would have supported or falsified the hypothesis of an expanding universe. Presence or absence of a cosmic background radiation would support or rule out a big bang event.

The big bang still has problems with it. Until we figure out dark energy, I think the big bang still has to be considered a provisional theory.

Gravity is not a theory; it is a force.

Not exactly. Gravity is called a force colloquially because that is the way it was thought of before general relativity.

In the general relativity scheme, gravity is not a force. It is a geometry - a curvature of space-time.

Here you are conflating Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" with evolution itself. Darwin's theory IS indeed speculation about the past (positing that present day life forms are the result of mutations of more primitive life forms). Evolution itself, on the other hand, has been observed in nature. We just don't know whether Darwin's theory is true or not, as his theory is merely speculation about past events, and we don't have a time machine to see if those past events actually happened or not.

Stone by stone was correct, you are in no position to lecture her. Multiple lines of substantial evidence supports the theory of evolution by natural selection, including real time observations of evolution by natural selection in laboratory controlled conditions: observations of evolutionary morphological changes in transitional fossils; genetic evidence that all life on earth evolved from a common primitive microbial origin

 

[Into the Night]

[
"Charles Darwin's Theory of Pangenesis"
Source: Arizona State University
...deleted Holy Link...

False authority fallacy. Arizona State University is not Charles Darwin.

[
Stanford University Department of Statistics
...deleted Holy Links...

Irrelevance fallacy.

[
All branches of science, especially physics, make use of mathematics, statistics, probability.

WRONG. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not a casino. It does not use statistical math. Theories ARE translated into mathematical form (called 'laws') to give them the power of prediction.

[
Quantum mechanics is recognized as a field of science, specifically physics >>

Nope. Mathematics.

[
"Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics relating to the very small."
...deleted Holy Link...

Nope. It is about anything that can be expressed in quanta. Size makes no difference.

 

[Into the Night]

No. Falsifying past events is standard practice in inductive science.

You cannot test any unobserved past event. Science has no theories about unobserved past events.

The big bang could have been falsifiable

It is not falsifiable. It is an unobserved past event.

by a number empirical observations.

None. No one has seen the Big Bang. A conclusion is not an observation.

Presence or lack of red shift in distant galaxy clusters would have supported or falsified the hypothesis of an expanding universe.

All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. The data they produce is evidence only. Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Presence or absence of a cosmic background radiation would support or rule out a big bang event.

Science does not use supporting evidence.

The big bang still has problems with it. Until we figure out dark energy, I think the big bang still has to be considered a provisional theory.

There is no such thing as a 'provisional theory'. There is a theory, or there is not. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A theory may be scientific or nonscientific. Theories of science must be falsifiable.

Not exactly. Gravity is called a force colloquially because that is the way it was thought of before general relativity.

It is still a force.

In the general relativity scheme, gravity is not a force. It is a geometry - a curvature of space-time.

Nope. It is still a force.

Stone by stone was correct,

Nope. He denies science.

you are in no position to lecture her.

Actually, he is.

Multiple lines of substantial evidence supports the theory of evolution

Science does not use supporting evidence. The Theory of Evolution is about an unobserved past event. There is no theory of science possible for that. It is not falsifiable. You can't go back in time to see what actually happened.

by natural selection,

Falsified. Not a theory. A paradox.

including real time observations of evolution by natural selection in laboratory controlled conditions: observations of evolutionary morphological changes in transitional fossils; genetic evidence that all life on earth evolved from a common primitive microbial origin

You can't go back in time to see what actually happened. No one has seen present life evolve from a common microbial origin. Not a theory of science. A religion.

 

[Cypress]

False authority fallacy. Arizona State University is not Charles Darwin.

Irrelevance fallacy.

WRONG. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not a casino. It does not use statistical math. Theories ARE translated into mathematical form (called 'laws') to give them the power of prediction.

Nope. Mathematics.

Nope. It is about anything that can be expressed in quanta. Size makes no difference.

You literally cannot admit when you are wrong, can you?

Into the Night: "There is no such thing as a 'statistics department' at a university!"

Stanford University Department of Statistics
https://statistics.stanford.edu/about/welcome

University of California Berkley Department of Statistics
https://statistics.berkeley.edu/

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The very nanosecond someone finds chimpanzee fossils in Cambrian rocks, the theory of evolution will be immediately falsified.

so you concur that it is unfalsifiable......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Quote Originally Posted by StoneByStone View Post
No, Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. It's not the belief that there are no gods.

Correct.

My point was that many people who call themselves "atheists" are not actually atheists (as atheism is being defined here). Instead, they spout off that they believe that there are no god/s. IBD then correctly chimed in that many of those "atheists" even lie about THAT.

not correct......that is the definition of atheism put forward over the last twenty years by atheists who are tired of being alone........one who lacks a belief in gods is an agnostic or perhaps merely apathetic.....atheists believe there are no gods and deny their existence.....