Evolutionist BS

Aimée said:
That's the exact same talking point that I see all the time in debates about evolution. These people are usually the ones who also say that the bible tells them that the earth is flat. Are you a flat-earther?
Click to expand...

Geeeee, I've never seen anyone bring that one up before... ;) ;)
 
gfm7175 said:
Nope. That's not my position at all. That would be making an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.


We are not chimpanzees. We are humans.


The Theory of Evolution is not science. It is a religion. It is not falsifiable.


Yup. You have religion. Nothing that resembles science.


You are a fundamentalist of your Evolution religion to the point where you don't even realize that it is a religion and is NOT science. Natural Selection, while it once WAS a theory of science, has since been falsified. It is no longer a theory of science.


Not everyone chooses to believe in the same religions that you do...


Not everyone chooses to believe int he same religions that you do... "Climate Change" is a circularly-defined buzzword (doesn't make reference to anything outside of itself), thus it is meaningless, thus it is a void argument. "Climate Change" outright rejects logic, science, and mathematics.


It has nothing to do with political affiliation...
Click to expand...

I was contemplating the possibility of responding, but then I remembered who you are:

An obscure message board poster with no training is science, who hilariously thinks they know more about science than the prestigious U.S. National Academies of Science.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...enial-Runs-Red-and-Blue&p=2947253#post2947253

There is no point responding to you, you lack credibility, and I place no weight on any claim, assertion, or opinion you toss out there.
 
gfm7175 said:
'You don't understand' mantra coupled with an Insult Fallacy.


According to your religion... Science has no theories about the non-falsifiable.


Natural Selection WAS a theory of science, but it has since been falsified. Organisms exist which contain traits that do not help it to survive (such as albinism). It only takes one such example to falsify the theory. Also, Logic falsifies Natural Selection. This theory presupposes a 'variety' to "select" from. Where did this 'variety' come from if Natural Selection has always been occurring? This brings the theory into a state of paradox.
Click to expand...
Oh gee...let's see how I respond to that. No natural selection has not been falsified. You can provide no independently verified scientific evidence that it has as you probably just don't know what the hell you're talking about. In fact I question if you even understand the falsification principle of science at all. You've already established in the past that you haven't the foggiest notion what a scientific theory is so why should your opinions have any credibility at all to those of us who have actually studied this topic objectively?
 
Cypress said:
I was contemplating the possibility of responding, but then I remembered who you are:
Click to expand...
Here, you are asserting that I am wrong because of who I am. Bulverism Fallacy.

Cypress said:
An obscure message board poster with no training is science, who hilariously thinks they know more about science than the prestigious U.S. National Academies of Science.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...enial-Runs-Red-and-Blue&p=2947253#post2947253
Click to expand...
Continued Bulverism... The USNAS is NOT science; it is a political organization. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Cypress said:
There is no point responding to you, you lack credibility, and I place no weight on any claim, assertion, or opinion you toss out there.
Click to expand...
Continued Bulverism...
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh gee...let's see how I respond to that. No natural selection has not been falsified.
Click to expand...
Yes, it has been falsified, and I provided the reasoning as to why it is falsified, which you completely ignored.

Mott the Hoople said:
You can provide no independently verified scientific evidence that it has
Click to expand...
Science is not "peer-review", nor is it "consensus". It is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no "independent verification" in science. There is no such thing as "scientific evidence". Evidence IS evidence, regardless of whether it is being used in science or elsewhere. Science does NOT make use of supporting evidence; only conflicting evidence.

Mott the Hoople said:
as you probably just don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Click to expand...
Have a counterargument??

Mott the Hoople said:
In fact I question if you even understand the falsification principle of science at all.
Click to expand...
I understand it perfectly fine. I've already explained what science is and how it works.

Mott the Hoople said:
You've already established in the past that you haven't the foggiest notion what a scientific theory is
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a "scientific theory". The definition of the word "theory" doesn't change due to 'science'... A theory is an explanatory argument. That's all a theory is. If that theory is falsifiable, and withstands null hypothesis testing, then it becomes a theory of science.

Mott the Hoople said:
so why should your opinions have any credibility at all to those of us who have actually studied this topic objectively?
Click to expand...
Because they best describe what science is and how it works. You've offered no counterargument...
 
I've asked for evidence about how the human eye could have evolved by a series of random mutations. Still waiting...
 
gfm7175 said:
Dismissing a particular source is not equivalent to ignorance about a particular topic...
Click to expand...

It depends how well it is sourced.. Some wiki has extensive footnotes that can be checked. You really think the theory of evolution is a religion? That's a new one on me.
 
Aimée said:
Dismissing a particular source because it doesn't agree with your premise is, however.
Click to expand...

That's not why I dismiss Wikipedia.

I dismiss Wikipedia as a source because it is often times incorrect, incomplete, and it can be edited by virtually anyone. They are one of many sources on my "dismiss upon sight" list...
 
kudzu said:
It depends how well it is sourced.. Some wiki has extensive footnotes that can be checked.
Click to expand...
I won't go as far as to say that all Wiki is bad, as I've seen some decent articles on there here and there, but it is too often incomplete and/or incorrect for me to accept them as a source. I will, however, listen to any argument, as long as it isn't just being copy/pasted from somewhere (or just a link provided to me), as I find those methods to be intellectual laziness.

kudzu said:
You really think the theory of evolution is a religion? That's a new one on me.
Click to expand...
Yes, I really do. Here's why:

First, we must be clear about what "religion" and "science" are defined as. I don't operate under the 'commonly used' definitions of these words that most people operate under, as I find them to be incomplete and/or problematic. People commonly use 'religion' to mean something along the lines of "belief in/worship of a god(s)". That, to me, is Theism, and religion is much more than just Theism. I, instead, define RELIGION as "an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it". It is something that is accepted/rejected purely on a faith basis. People commonly use 'science' to refer to some "method" that makes use of things such as "supporting evidence" and "consensus" and "peer-review", and etc... None of that stuff is actually science. I, instead, define SCIENCE more along the philosophy of Karl Popper, as "a set of falsifiable theories".

So, given that, what makes Evolution a religion? Well, here's the short answer. What IS Evolution? The Theory of Evolution posits that current life is the result of more primitive life mutating over time. It is, essentially, a theory about a past unobserved event, so there is no way to falsify it (as we don't have access to a functional time machine to go back in time and see what actually happened). That rules it out as being science, since science only concerns itself with falsifiable theories. Thus, it instead is a religion.
 
gfm7175 said:
I won't go as far as to say that all Wiki is bad, as I've seen some decent articles on there here and there, but it is too often incomplete and/or incorrect for me to accept them as a source. I will, however, listen to any argument, as long as it isn't just being copy/pasted from somewhere (or just a link provided to me), as I find those methods to be intellectual laziness.


Yes, I really do. Here's why:

First, we must be clear about what "religion" and "science" are defined as. I don't operate under the 'commonly used' definitions of these words that most people operate under, as I find them to be incomplete and/or problematic. People commonly use 'religion' to mean something along the lines of "belief in/worship of a god(s)". That, to me, is Theism, and religion is much more than just Theism. I, instead, define RELIGION as "an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it". It is something that is accepted/rejected purely on a faith basis. People commonly use 'science' to refer to some "method" that makes use of things such as "supporting evidence" and "consensus" and "peer-review", and etc... None of that stuff is actually science. I, instead, define SCIENCE more along the philosophy of Karl Popper, as "a set of falsifiable theories".

So, given that, what makes Evolution a religion? Well, here's the short answer. What IS Evolution? The Theory of Evolution posits that current life is the result of more primitive life mutating over time. It is, essentially, a theory about a past unobserved event, so there is no way to falsify it (as we don't have access to a functional time machine to go back in time and see what actually happened). That rules it out as being science, since science only concerns itself with falsifiable theories. Thus, it instead is a religion.
Click to expand...

Must make it hard to communicate if your definition of words is so personal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top