Evolution Is In Trouble - Detailed - Why So Many Scientist Are Saying So

[Tobytone]

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

That's right. You can't prove it doesn't exist either.

I'm not trying to prove Jesus Christ exists or that God exists.

There IS evidence for Zeus.

How do you know they are manufactured?

Evidence has a specific meaning. Your word games won't work.

The word 'evidence' first appeared in the English lexicon around 1300. It's meaning has never changed. Stemming from French, the word essentially means 'basis for belief'.

You're truly doing God's work trying to crack this one. LOL

Please Zen Mode, if you happen to see this comment, I am not attempting to get your attention to inject myself into the argument. IntoTheNight is doing a more complete and more thorough job than I could, so stick with him and focus on letting the words soak in, and let them simmer for a moment before hammering on your keyboard in a knee-jerk fashion. Calm and measured is the right path to allow for possible cranial penetration.

 

[IBDaMann]

For the record, ZenMode broadcasts that he has no rebuttal at a certain point by completely mischaracterizing an opposing position and by thereafter forever responding to that mischaracterized position, ignoring everything that is actually being said.

In the current example, Into the Night has tried in vain to explain the evidence for the Christian God, and ZenMode will have none of it:

Just saying "things exist" isn't evidence for any specific religion's God than it's evidence for leprechauns.

No. Saying "things exist" isn't evidence for a specific god any more than it is evidence for an 8 headed unicorn-monkey.

Again, "things exist" is not proof of the existence of the Christian god

To clarify, your position is that there is evidence for literally any being, that man can conjure up in his mind, as long as the thing man has conjured up is given the power to create things, because things exist. What in the actual fuck?

... ad infinitum.

When it comes to Global Warming and Climate Change, ZenMode mischaracterizes science as a cult religion whose doctrines are being "misapplied" and that science isn't science "just because you say so" ... ad infinitum.

[*-ZenMode_Error Things Exist]

 

[ZenMode]

How do you know it was only conjured up in his mind?

Because that's what scientifically ignorant, iron age, and earlier, men did.

Again, you're saying that any person can conjure up any all-powerful being, write a book about it and that book becomes evidence, in itself, simply because "things exist".

 

[Into the Night]

For the record, ZenMode broadcasts that he has no rebuttal at a certain point by completely mischaracterizing an opposing position and by thereafter forever responding to that mischaracterized position, ignoring everything that is actually being said.

In the current example, Into the Night has tried in vain to explain the evidence for the Christian God, and ZenMode will have none of it:






... ad infinitum.

When it comes to Global Warming and Climate Change, ZenMode mischaracterizes science as a cult religion whose doctrines are being "misapplied" and that science isn't science "just because you say so" ... ad infinitum.

[*-ZenMode_Error Things Exist]

Science isn't being discussed here. Global Warming isn't being discussed here. Religion in general is. Your meme is out of context, you have been improving on your memes! This one is much more appropriate for a Global Warming thread.

This is about logic and his fundamentalism, not science.

 

[Into the Night]

Because that's what scientifically ignorant, iron age, and earlier, men did.

Buzzword fallacy. Contextomy fallacy. Try to stay on topic. Science has no religion. It is completely atheistic. It doesn't care whether a god or gods exist or not. It simply doesn't go there.

You cannot prove a god or gods don't exist using science! First, science is an open functional system. There are no proofs possible. Second, science is nothing to do with any religion, either Christianity nor the Church of No God, which you believe in.

Again, you're saying that any person can conjure up any all-powerful being, write a book about it and that book becomes evidence, in itself, simply because "things exist".

How do you know it's conjured up?

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). You cannot prove a circular argument either True or False. Redefinition fallacy (evidence<->proof).

 

[Daylight63]

You cannot prove a god or gods don't exist using science!

So God is less real than say a rock? Why can't God be determined to exist by science???? Is God not ABLE to be detected by Science? Whose fault is that? (Answer: God. Ergo if God can't be detected by Science then God is HIDING. A hiding God is not worthy of worship.)

First, science is an open functional system. There are no proofs possible. Second, science is nothing to do with any religion, either Christianity nor the Church of No God, which you believe in.

That's a lot of gobbledy gook.

 

[ZenMode]

Buzzword fallacy. Contextomy fallacy. Try to stay on topic. Science has no religion. It is completely atheistic. It doesn't care whether a god or gods exist or not. It simply doesn't go there.

You cannot prove a god or gods don't exist using science! First, science is an open functional system. There are no proofs possible. Second, science is nothing to do with any religion, either Christianity nor the Church of No God, which you believe in.

How do you know it's conjured up?

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). You cannot prove a circular argument either True or False. Redefinition fallacy (evidence<->proof).

Then you explain to me why I couldn't write a book about some god I've claimed to see and interact with, and claim that the evidence of that god is the very book I wrote?

 

[Into the Night]

So God is less real than say a rock?

Missing comma.
Buzzword fallacy. Go learn what 'real' means.

Why can't God be determined to exist by science????

RQAA.

Is God not ABLE to be detected by Science?

RQAA

Whose fault is that?

Not a fault.

(Answer: God. Ergo if God can't be detected by Science then God is HIDING. A hiding God is not worthy of worship.)

You cannot use science as a proof, Sybil.

That's a lot of gobbledy gook.

I agree. Your post is a lot of gobbledygook.

Science doesn't care whether any god or gods exist or not. It is completely atheistic. Science has no proofs.
Redefinition fallacy (evidence<->proof).

 

[Into the Night]

Then you explain to me why I couldn't write a book about some god I've claimed to see and interact with, and claim that the evidence of that god is the very book I wrote?

You can.

 

[ZenMode]

You can.

That's hilarious. Even more hilarious is that you accused me of circular reasoning when you accept a book as evidence of itself being true.

 

[Cypress]

We're often told, and many assume, that science has essentially figured out the physical world. This mantra has been repeated so frequently from multiple sources that it has naturally become a widespread belief.

The only people advancing that view are uniformed laypersons. Not reputable scientist I've heard ever says we basically have everything figured out.

It seems many scientists ignore or dismiss strong evidence that, at a minimum, suggests mutation theory is becoming less likely by any standards.

Mutation theory has nothing to do with the modern NeoDarwinian synthesis on evolution. Mutation theory seems to be a discredited 19th century alternative to Darwin's theory of gradual evolution by natural selection.

 

[Tobytone]

The only people advancing that view are uniformed laypersons. Not reputable scientist I've heard ever says we basically have everything figured out.


Mutation theory has nothing to do with the modern NeoDarwinian synthesis on evolution. Mutation theory seems to be a discredited 19th century alternative to Darwin's theory of gradual evolution by natural selection.

Why thank you, I'll point to the over 1000 scientists that say "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." That's a nice way of saying, the theory is shit. lol

I find your derogatory remark towards 'non-scientists' to be a quintessential manifestation of unwarranted hubris from a crassly obstinate, cerebrally overtaxed individual. Incidentally, I've moved on to more pertinent matters this day. It's quite the hectic period on the final day of liberal hegemony, and such a sublime juncture draws nigh. I'd be elated to revisit any impertinently audacious comments you might leave on this matter post-celebration. LOL. Do keep those shears concealed, lest you resemble a fool with a tonsured pate. Merely a conjecture.

 

[Into the Night]

That's hilarious. Even more hilarious is that you accused me of circular reasoning when you accept a book as evidence of itself being true.

Mantra 30a. It is. A circular argument by itself is not a fallacy.
YOU made a circular argument fallacy. You are trying to prove a circular argument True.

 

[Into the Night]

The only people advancing that view are uniformed laypersons. Not reputable scientist I've heard ever says we basically have everything figured out.

Science doesn't 'figure things out', Sybil. Science has no proofs.

Mutation theory has nothing to do with the modern NeoDarwinian synthesis on evolution.

Not science.

Mutation theory seems to be a discredited 19th century alternative to Darwin's theory of gradual evolution by natural selection.

Not science. The Theory of Natural Selection constructs a paradox, AND animals exist that are NOT ideally suited for their environment.

 

[Into the Night]

Why thank you, I'll point to the over 1000 scientists that say "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." That's a nice way of saying, the theory is shit. lol

I find your derogatory remark towards 'non-scientists' to be a quintessential manifestation of unwarranted hubris from a crassly obstinate, cerebrally overtaxed individual. Incidentally, I've moved on to more pertinent matters this day. It's quite the hectic period on the final day of liberal hegemony, and such a sublime juncture draws nigh. I'd be elated to revisit any impertinently audacious comments you might leave on this matter post-celebration. LOL. Do keep those shears concealed, lest you resemble a fool with a tonsured pate. Merely a conjecture.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. That means a theory that a test can be developed to test the validity of the theory itself. As long as such tests against a theory continue to fail, the theory is automatically part of the body of science. There is no vote, no voting bloc, no 'peer review', NOTHING.

A theory of science will remain so until it is eventually (if ever) falsified by such a test. In other words, science only uses conflicting evidence. It does not use supporting evidence at all. Only religions do that.

It is not possible to prove any theory True. Because of this definition of science, it turns out that science has NO theory about any past unobserved event. It is simply not possible to go back in time to see what actually happened. Thus:

* The Theory of Creation (which states that life came to Earth through the action of some kind of intelligence) is not science.
* The Theory of Abiogenesis (which states that life came to Earth through a series of random unspecified events) is not science.
* The Theory of Evolution (which states that present life evolved from more 'primitive' forms) is not science.
* The Theory of the Big Bang (which states the Universe started from some small or infinitely tiny and high energy object, expanding into the Universe we see today) is not science. Indeed, the Universe has no know boundaries, so what is 'expanding'??
* The Theory of the Continuum (which states that the Universe has always existed and always will) is not science.

A theory of science MUST be falsifiable. That means tests to try to break it must be available, must be practical to conduct, must be specific, and must produce a specific result.

If and when a theory of science is falsified, it is no longer a theory of science. It is utterly destroyed.

Theories of science can come from anywhere. While sleeping and dreaming, while working in a laboratory, while watching an episode of Sponge Bob. If the theory can be tested to try to break it, and it survives such a test, it is automatically science.

ALL theories start out as circular arguments (an argument of faith). It is the test to try to break a theory that fails that makes a theory of science more than just a simple circular argument. Nonscientific theories, such as the ones I've shown, remain circular arguments.

A religion can best be described as some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. Each one of these theories I've shown is also a religion. Some of them are inherently fundamentalist. People try to claim they are 'science' when they are not falsifiable at all. The event is unobserved, and we can't go back in time to see what actually happened. Science NO theories about past unobserved events.

 

[Into the Night]

Science cannot predict. It can only describe. To be able to predict, it must be transcribed into a closed functional system, such as mathematics or logic. Thus, most theories of science are expressed in mathematical form, such as F=mA (in my opinion the most important theory in science!) or E=mc^2 (valuable, but not nearly as influential as Newton's law of motion, which has still not been falsified.

Why?

F=mA describes a relation between Force, Mass, and acceleration. This one equation caused scientists to zero in like a laser to try to answer some fundamental questions: What IS 'force' (Newton used gravity to come up with his equation), what forces are there, and do they all behave the same way with this equation?

Also the question: What is 'mass'? What makes it 'mass'? What properties does 'mass' have?

Just trying to come up with useful theories and models about 'force' and 'mass' has resulted in some pretty astounding models and theories. It did have one fly in the ointment. Newton's law of motion can result in no motion, and no acceleration. So what is 'zero' speed or position?

Einstein answered that one very easily. 'Zero' is literally what you choose it to be at the time. Everything is relative. What you call 'zero' is strictly up to you! Are you moving, or is the Earth moving? Or is the Sun moving?

It's ALL moving!

It is mathematics that gives a theory the power of prediction. Closed functional systems have the power of proof, and with it, the power of prediction. Prediction is normally inherent in mathematics (and again, in logic). Science is an open functional system, and therefore has no proof available by itself, but it CAN be translated into a closed functional system to gain that power.

Mathematics is a closed functional system because it's entire boundary is defined by a simple set of rules, or axioms. Every proof in mathematics stems from those axioms. Change one, and you are playing a different game.

Logic is the same way.

Science has an open boundary. The only requirement of a theory of science is that it be falsifiable. Beyond that, anything goes; but it does mean there are no proofs there, and thus no power of prediction there.

 

[IBDaMann]

Science isn't being discussed here.

It was an example highlighting ZenMode's error. Ignore it if you wish.

Global Warming isn't being discussed here. Religion in general is.

Yes. It was an example.

This is about logic and his fundamentalism, not science.

Exactly.

 

[Tobytone]

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. That means a theory that a test can be developed to test the validity of the theory itself. As long as such tests against a theory continue to fail, the theory is automatically part of the body of science. There is no vote, no voting bloc, no 'peer review', NOTHING.

Agreed

A theory of science will remain so until it is eventually (if ever) falsified by such a test. In other words, science only uses conflicting evidence. It does not use supporting evidence at all. Only religions do that.

Agreed

It is not possible to prove any theory True. Because of this definition of science, it turns out that science has NO theory about any past unobserved event. It is simply not possible to go back in time to see what actually happened. Thus:

Agreed

* The Theory of Creation (which states that life came to Earth through the action of some kind of intelligence) is not science.
* The Theory of Abiogenesis (which states that life came to Earth through a series of random unspecified events) is not science.
* The Theory of Evolution (which states that present life evolved from more 'primitive' forms) is not science.
* The Theory of the Big Bang (which states the Universe started from some small or infinitely tiny and high energy object, expanding into the Universe we see today) is not science. Indeed, the Universe has no know boundaries, so what is 'expanding'??
* The Theory of the Continuum (which states that the Universe has always existed and always will) is not science.

Agreed

A theory of science MUST be falsifiable. That means tests to try to break it must be available, must be practical to conduct, must be specific, and must produce a specific result.

Agreed

If and when a theory of science is falsified, it is no longer a theory of science. It is utterly destroyed.

Agreed

Theories of science can come from anywhere. While sleeping and dreaming, while working in a laboratory, while watching an episode of Sponge Bob. If the theory can be tested to try to break it, and it survives such a test, it is automatically science.

Agreed

ALL theories start out as circular arguments (an argument of faith). It is the test to try to break a theory that fails that makes a theory of science more than just a simple circular argument. Nonscientific theories, such as the ones I've shown, remain circular arguments.

Agreed

A religion can best be described as some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. Each one of these theories I've shown is also a religion. Some of them are inherently fundamentalist. People try to claim they are 'science' when they are not falsifiable at all. The event is unobserved, and we can't go back in time to see what actually happened. Science NO theories about past unobserved events.

Agreed, and thorough as usual. I expect nobody will bother trying to disprove any of those comments. If they do, I'll enjoy watching.

 

[Tobytone]

Science doesn't 'figure things out', Sybil. Science has no proofs.

Not science.

Not science. The Theory of Natural Selection constructs a paradox, AND animals exist that are NOT ideally suited for their environment.

This should be fun. LOL Be careful I think he's been to college.

 

[Tobytone]

You can.

I wonder how many copies it will sell?? hmmmm