Evolution is crap! Squawk! (Page 17) AchillesSinatra: If all the world denies the truth', it will never make the truth any less true! Squawk!!!!! AchillesSinatra: So, folks, in a nutshell here's Blackshoes' PhD dissertation: The theory of evolution (which does not exist - Achilles) . . . . . . is unfalsifiable pseudoscience (thus cannot be falsified - Achilles) . . . . . . and it has been falsified (see my thread on falsification - Achilles) . . . . . . by a legitimate and honest scientist . . . . . . on the grounds that there is no observational evidence present or within the past 4000 years of selective breeding. QED Er, don't quit your day job, dude. (see "Evolution is a Bad Idea" for the recherché details) SQUAWK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Edited by AchillesSinatra) AchillesSinatra: And why do these cretins keep squawking about "observational evidence" anyway? What would you prefer? Invisible evidence?  (Edited by AchillesSinatra)  BelgianStrider: Bwa depends how you look again... There are visible evidences, problem if you refuse to look, you surely won't see. same like: "we shall see" said the blind one in his bed while sleeping Squawk !!!! (Edited by BelgianStrider) BelgianStrider: Also his lengthy irrational contradictory quotations and video's he presents us as "science" all (mostly) come from Bonux PhD with no knowledge of biology with a deep literal belief in the Talmud... Well if that is science and truth, my ass has more brains than zeffur's head ... (ow... damn ... that last one can be probably a fact ...it might be true) Squawk!!!!!! AchillesSinatra: @ Belgian. Re evidence Actually there is some controversy over the status of what's called "non-empirical evidence", not that either of these clowns would know about it. A good empiricist such as Bas van Fraassen, say, holds that the only evidence worthy of scientific consideration is a match-up between theory and data. Non-empirical evidence is strictly no-go. On the other hand, as you might have guessed, not all agree. Some maintain that so-called "non-empirical" factors such as the simplicity, elegance, beauty, explanatory goodness, etc. of a theory also constitute evidence in favor of that theory. Our old pal Einstein frequently spoke this way. AchillesSinatra: Corwin, in another thread, raised the interesting topic of "Ockham's razor". Now, everyone agrees, all else being equal, if two theories are "empirically equivalent" -- entail precisely the same set of observational consequences -- then it makes sense to choose the simpler theory of the two. In other words, it makes METHODOLOGICAL sense to work with the simpler theory. On the other hand, whether simplicity counts as an EPISTEMIC (as opposed to methodological) virtue -- i.e. gives us reason to think the simpler theory is more likely to be TRUE than the less simple one -- is a matter of some debate. Some -- Einstein, perhaps -- would claim that a theory's simplicity (beauty, elegance, etc) constitutes evidence towards its truth. This is what is meant by "non-empirical evidence". A good empiricist would throw a fit at the very thought: "Why should we think a theory is more likely to be true just because it's simpler than a rival?". BelgianStrider: It is a fact that in most sciences the simpler theory might be the correct one (I say well might). Though already in chemistry at first sight it seems not be the case.. we all know that all the more complex atoms are the results of fusions of lesser complex atoms and that the key of all is H, hydrogen the first atom, and that soon the more complex atom C (Carbon) became the most prolific one and can make also the most complex chemical combinations and reactions. Live seems also to be one of the case, we should not forget some decades ago, nobody could imagine that live could be in the most hostile environments, that incredible acid or basic (chemistry basic) environments can contain live. That live is prolific in environments of more than 100 ° C. Antibiotic was-is a quite new adequate antibacterial medicine.. It just needed less than 8 decades for bacteria to start to be resistant to that (for them) "hostile" environment. Life seems to be, like chemistry, coming from a simple organism to complex organisms that seems to need more energy. Is that the case though? The digestive system of a carnivore need less energy than a herbivore. The hominids thanks to their complex intelligence became the most lazy creature. It 's a fact to be able to live that lazy easy life it spends huge energy. But our organism itself spent the least energy to live on that lazy way. Again it is a way how things are observed, and I admit that philosophy makes people aware that you should not observe everything in one specific way. And science approaches problems mostly methodically and pragmatically. The dream of every scientist is to be able to put everything in a mathematical model. That works quite well in physics, in quantum-physics, mostly in chemistry (already in bio-chemistry it is not always the case, specially when the carbon molecules take helixes... natural created carbon molecules has the helix in the opposite direction from identic synthetic ones. Why ???? euuuuuhhhhhh ???????????) Biology and live is also such a science that we can't put in a pure mathematical model. Languages, philosophy, psychology etc are even more away from normal mathematical logics... (Edited by BelgianStrider) AchillesSinatra: . What's so stupid about saying "A belief is not a fact"? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (as Zeffur does about a hundred times a day) Well, first of all, it is entirely uninformative, in the true spirit of Zeffur's "the truth is just what is true". Contrast with a statement like (G1): "A guinea pig is not a rodent". According to my understanding, the scientific consensus nowadays is that the above statement is indeed true; the poor guinea pig, like the whale, was misclassified. Whether G1 is true or not is of no import to the present discussion. Let us assume that is true for now. The point to made is that G1 is INFORMATIVE. There are, no doubt, many people out there (I used to be one) who think that the guinea pig IS a rodent. And even if it's not a rodent, it is at least the kind of thing that could conceivably BE a rodent. It is kinda rodent-like, after all. In short, you can, at least potentially, LEARN something by being told a guinea pig is not a rodent. Now, compare this with Zeffur's (B1): "A belief is not a fact". It's hard to imagine anyone out there--with the possible exception of darkest Appalachia--labors under the misapprehension that a belief IS a fact. Beliefs and facts, we might say, move in different circles. A belief is not the kind of thing that could BE a fact. Zeffur's B1, then, is a bit like telling us "A hexagon is not a poached egg". True? Of course! Informative or helpful in any way? Um, not unless you're an incorrigible retard. Well, what is a belief then? Except for the so-called "eliminative materialists" who deny bona fide ontological status to the entire panoply of mental states of folk psychology (beliefs, desires, fears, hopes, etc., etc.), a belief is generally taken to be, somehow or other, instantiated in the brain. (I'm gonna ignore semantic externalism for simplicity) And what is a fact? The term is notoriously ambiguous between a state of affairs in the world, and a STATEMENT of such. In the latter case it is a linguistic entity; in the former it is not. Either way, you're not gonna find facts between your ears. Squawk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Edited by AchillesSinatra) MJ59: So..... creationists, happy to accept the oldest con job known to man. Goddidit is the only solution for them, they lack imagination or any shred of integrity. At least those of us who subscribe to the evolutionary model are interested in finding answers to the big questions instead of blindly believing the biggest load of BS ever perpetrated on mankind. Yet these botherers will believe any old BS if "goddidit" , their go to explanation, they have the hide to ridicule anyone who has an enquiring mind and would like to actually find answers...  From where do they get all this blind arrogance? Why is their "go to" denigration and insult to those they disagree with? Why is it, that the only time they actually look at science is to find spurious "facts" from dodgy websites such as Answers In Genesis, The Discovery Institute and the Institute for Creation Research.... all institutions who are paid to "debunk" science as it doesn't gel with their religious world view? Why are they so obtuse that they cannot even recognise their own blind bias? Why are these so called christians such nasty little, small minded people? And lastly, why do they seem to think that quoting bible passages and biased "scientific" knowledge ad nauseum makes them seem intelligent, when most of them are as dumb as a squid? (Edited by MJ59) BelgianStrider: I would say ... take some examples of indoctrinations in other forms 8 decades ago nazism and actually in the States the trumpism and the with-holding white supremacy. They also did/do not wanted to see how they are biased with the most ridicule lies, and are thinking they are the only ones right (hmm in fact they are extreme right, not left - I mean the other right  )(Edited by BelgianStrider) BelgianStrider: Angry pssssssttttt I think squids are more intelligent than those two indoctrinated asses Squawk!!!! BelgianStrider: How is it possible that people are so dumb to compare apples with bananas (it ain't pears anymore)?????????? Eugenics is evolution theory, eugenics is crap, ->. evolution is crap Social darwinism is evolution theory. Social darwinism was a tool for misuse and abuse and is crap -> evolution is crap Squawk !!!!! (Edited by BelgianStrider) (Post deleted by BelgianStrider ) | Science Chat Room Similar Conversations |
