Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

Hmmmm, obviously maturity doesn't come by with evolution......

 

So far I don't see overwhelming majority of posters doing anything but keep repeating "this theory is proven because it's proven and there is mountain of evidence for it because there is. And if you still ask for more then you are ____________ (fill in the blank with any insult you can imagine )

Well, I think I have read about similar hypothesis in works of C. Jung.
It dealt with human unconsciousness and his attempts to understand it.

But here is the thing: aside from "outer space aliens" (which clearly is the product of human imagination, unless one has evidence to contrary) , the fact of phenomena itself (various objects seen in skies, of various luminosity, shape and form, either suspended or moving or else) is not a hallucinogenic, imaginary thing. (if it is then one must study what causes adult, mentally normal, average people to hallucinate en mass).

But origin of it or what it actually is remains unknown.
It could be the meteorological phenomena or could be whatever, what do I know.

And as long as I don't know what it actually is (aside from what people imagine it to be) I can come up with any fancy "theory" I wish to explain it but it won't be scientifically valid by definition.

I never said our existence is nothing to explain. What I say is that the process whereby species come into existence is the phenomena. And that we don't possess enough knowledge to be able to explain it.
If there is any misunderstanding, I dont think it has anything to do with my comprehension of what the word phenomena means or what it implies.

Why is it so terrible example?

Well, UFO exists. But what do you know about it to claim anything about it's properties?
And if I make an absurd claim such as "UFO IS A ROCKET THAT FLIES ON HORSEPOOP" how you actively argue to disprove it?
Can you disprove it ?
And if no, do I have a valid scientific theory there?
If you say yes then I have nothing to argue with you any further lol
If you say no, then I will ask why Darwinism is.

Neither is applicable

I make no excuses, Darwinists do.

Then what are you doing debating with me? lol

I don't see you showing it to be so.

See above.

 

The same post is posted on the other thread. Cease and desist, spammer.

 

It wasn't posted for you.
Cease and desist reading posts not addressed to you!
Troll.

 

Ok, but I'll only teach you a little at a time (You really should be paying me for this), so after this i am done for today.

Why Is the UFO Horsepoopy Claim Unreasonable and The Darwin Claim Reasonable?

First thing we look at when examining how reasonable a claim is, is evidence. Now, you must atleast contend that there is more evidence for the Darwin claim then there is for the UFO Horsepoopy claim.

The next thing we look at, is testability. Your claim is untestable (that i assume is the nature of you mock claim), while the Darwinian claim is testable, I strickly speaking cannot claim how, i have no expertise in biology but none the less the claims evolutionists make (yes Darwin has be revised) are observable.

Next thing is Fruitfulness, how useful is your UFO horsepoopy claim at making predictions? can it make any predictions? are those predictions testable? Your claim fails in fruitfulness. What about the Darwinian claim? yes Darwinists can make predictions, they can obersve those predictions.

We also look at scope although often there is some cross over here with fruitfulness, scope is particularly important to our example here. the UFO Horsepoopy claim has no real scope, it can only be applied to alien space craft (i am assuming thats what you mean by UFO, because if we are using UFO by it's definition, your claim is logically flawed). Alien space craft being something that isn't even proven to exist, the UFO Horsepoopy claim has an extremely limited scope.

How about the Darwinian claim? it scores excellent in this area, evolution can be used to explain why primates are so similar to us and why those damned viruses keep getting better then our medicines and so on.

Moving on to the next criteria, simplicity (simple in this context refers to the least amount of assumptions). Your UFO Horsepoopy claim fails this area as well. You must assume alien space craft must exist, you must assume that there is a mechanism for it and that this mechanism is able to to work despite being made out of horsepoopy.

Now the Darwinian claim at first might seem to fail this to. But to assume something completely there must be no evidence for it, Darwinism does not need to assume anything that does not have some evidence for it. That is to say, Darwinism attempts to explain evidence already there, the UFO Horsepoopy attempts to explain evidence that is not there.

And finally and least importantly is conservatism.
I'm sure you're going to find this last one upsetting, because it seems to me you associate scientific community with religion, but i dont care. Your UFO horsepoopy claims things that go against scientific understanding, which is fine when there is overwhelming evidence to support it, but unfortunatley the UFO Horsepoopy claim has no such evidence.

Darwinsim fails here to, but simply because evolutionism has evolved D) over time in light of new information, Darwinism however at the time of its conception, was conservative, as evolutionism is now.

Now in terms of scientific validity (that is something that is understood through the scientifc method), is different from reasonable so now i am going to explain some of that.

Your example claim (yes i know it is a mock claim) , is not scientificaly valid because it has not been scrutinized using the scientific method. That doesn't make it unreasonable, the criteria i have just gone through show why it is unreasonable and why (at the time) Darwins claim was reasonable.

So what made Darwins claim scientificaly valid and your UFO Horsepoopy claim not valid? Did you Observe any phenomenon before making your claim or did you just make it? Did you logically deduce what change in other variables should occur if your hypothesis was correct? did you test your hypothesis using the deduced implications? Did you make any of the findings public?

Of course the answer to all those questions is no you did not (it is a mock claim after all) but Darwin did, which is what made his claim scientificaly valid (which it no longer is, because that would be to ignore new evidence).

Of course you need to keep in mind that validity does not refer to truth but i am not going to get into that one again because you do not get it and i am ok with that.

So now you know why Darwins claim was reasonable and valid, why the evolutionist claim is reasonable and valid and why your UFO Horsepoopy is both unreasonable and scientificaly invaild.

 

OK jumbulli55. You're an easy read, so I'll lay it on the line:

You're a needy near-twenty year-old virgin. Your daddy ran off and your mommie's too busy sleeping with the guy of the day to pay any attention to you. You've already taken all your anti-depression and ADD meds in a misguided attempt to get hi, so your depression is acute. So you come here demanding attention and validation in an attempt to combat you're inferiority complex.

It won't work. You need a therapist.
It's not your fault.

 

In reading the 5 or 6 new pages that popped since I've been sleeping, it seems geckopelli is the one with attention seeking traits and maturity issues, who obviously hasn't grasped the concept of reading, and himself could do handily with a therapist.

And by the way, Jumbuli claimed earlier he was old, so he can't be a nearly-20 year old if he himself sees me as much younger than himself. This must relate back to that reading concept we talked about.

 

Dogma worshiper is angry because evidently he is unable to argue his points on merits. Hence all the namecalling.
Ignore him. Don't feed the troll.

 

To ignore is ignorant.

 

But ignorance is bliss...

 

All hoax perpetrating Darwinist trolls are defeated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=084h7Bx-tiQ

Is there no on else?

 

honeyfugle,
Since Jumbulli refers name calling to reason, and refuses to participate in a rational manner, I'm going to explain myself to you.

People communicate with others in a fashion accepted by thier peers. jumbulli is arrogant, superior, childish, and snotty. These are the types of commincation he understands. ergo, (as he likes to say), to get something across to him, one must speak as an inferior, a superior, or a snotty child.

Analysis from his post was a simple matter; I'll bet it's at least 50% correct.
I can read the Tarot, too

So putting all this together, I developed a tactic to teach this poor fool something in spite of himself. you should be able to see the pattern if you look.

The result was that jumbulli nearly stopped spamming me, and, for a crucial little while, he read my post and consumed them without comment or slander.

Since he shows a tendency to incorporate information he picks up on these threads (without aknowledgement, naturally) into his spiel, you will see evidence of this in his future postings.

Frankly, I'm rather proud of myself. Making a dogmatic fanatic think is the best thing one can do for -- the whole world.

If that makes me a bad person in your eyes, I can accept that.

 

Excellent post. It should settle this argument (But I'll bet it won't)!

 

The post of Xac is not so excellent because it has many errors.
I didn't focus on it too much because he was disputing more for fun (like monkey boy) than anything so there was no point to go over it.

But since you praise it as "excellent" (as if Xac scored any points there), critical look is due.

So, let's take a close look at this "excellent" in Okiefreaks view post:

We talk about evidence for PHENOMENA.
PHENOMENA being :

1) In case of Biology - the mechanism whereby thousands of species emerged over few billion years (It's a phenomena , all we really know about it is that it somehow happened, how that PHENOMENA reely happened is what Darwin tried to explain with his theory)

2) In case of UFO - an unknown, unidentified flying object. Also phenomena for wich no scientific theory explaining it's origins or nature exists.

Testable?
Great! Why don't you get an ape and make a human out of it?
Too late? Too far branched off?
Well, why don't you at least show ANY evidence of macroevolution? That would give grounds to say it's "testable".
All you have is an evidence of microevolution and you say "well, few billions of years were just enough to produce macroevolutionary processes".

But guess what? First you must somehow prove that macroevolution is possible at all.

Then you have to calculate the speed of random mutation, lifespan of organism, calculated probability of each macroevolutionary step in calculated span of time.
Do you have any of it?
(That latter part would be pure numerical abstraction (like they do in Big Bang theory since nobody can TEST a Big Bang in laboratory and create a new Universe, but at least they got their numbers righ up to Plank epoch !)

So what do you mean when you say it's "testable"?

This was the only quote I responded to earlier.
This guy basically admits that he knows nothig about theory he is talking about , but somehow he asserts that the claims evolutionists make are observable. So, without knowledge he has belief that it is so.
Guess what? Belief is not evidence or proof of any claim being scientifically accurate.

Ok, make a prediction now! How many billions of years it would take for watermelon to evolve into homo sapience?
Please explain what your calculation/prediction is based on?
If you can't make a man out of watermelon (watermelon being too advanced and specieted on it's own to give possibility of human genom come out of it), then tell me just what predictions on macroevolutionary scale can you make based on Darwinism?
How are they being tested (please give reference to lab, name of scientist, scientific literature where we can read and verify all particulars and etc. Don't give me links to newspapers where some journalists basically do what any other poster does here - make some baseless assertion with "some scientists somewhere just say so" references.)

Exactly! UFO ,strictly speaking, is an Unknown Flying Object. A phenomena!
So is macroevolutionary speciation, it also IS a phenomena.
Nobody knows exactly what it is.
Yet, with UFO all the sensible scientists agree there is no valid scientific theory to explain it.
But with macroevolutionary speciation they claim there is.
And what do they really know about latter PHENOMENA as opposed to former to claim that they also have valid theory to explain it?
So, if Darwin's theory of evolution is accepted , without any real knowledge of phenomena, as Scientifically Valid, then why can't my fancy theory about horsepoop driven UFO's stand the same ground?

At least you admitetd before that you have no idea about the subject

First, what can be simpler than an idea of a rocket flown on horsepoop?
Well, I must admit Darwinism is simpler in that regard LOL

Second, as far assumptions about phenomena concerned:
what makes Darwinists assume that macroevolutionary phenomena exists as they imagine it to?
And then they imagine certain simple mechanism (really a lot simpler than horsepoop as a fuel for a rocket) to explain the whole evolutionary process.

Why apply double standard, why subject my horsepoopy UFO theory to such high standards while accepting a lot simpler Darwinian explanation for a fact , merely believing it is so?

Hm....

No, why you say that?

Look, UFO is a phenomena.
All we really know about it is something up there in skies is visible for a brief period of time, sometimes it flies and changes traectory, at other times it is suspended in air, just changes luminosity, still at other times it's both, it appears and then disappers (we don't even know if those are all manifestations of various phenomenas or is it something uniquely related to each other).

Now what on Earth are you going to do , how are you going to explain it if there is nothing known about it?
I say the most proper way is to call it what it is UFO - UNKNOWN Flying Object.

Somehow I don't hear Darwinists say "But wait, you must present at least some theory here , either that or it's magic man in the skies".
And truly darwinian alternative (if followed logic Darwinists apply in biology) would indeed be Horsepoopy Flying Rocket Theory or something even simpler than that to come close to Darwinism as an analogy.

For what does Darwinist really know about phenomena? And i am not talking about you, admittedly you know nothing about the theory, but I mean all those big title researchers and etc. What do they know about phenomena of macroevolutionary speciation other than a wild guess they make in absence of any other possible explanations?

Very good, I agree! Now what evidence do YOU have for Darwinism? LOL

You actually admitted before that you know nothing about the theory to back up your assertion, now how are you going to tell me that your not knowing what you are talking about makes it scientifically valid theory?

Read above LOL .

I can break it down and respond to each single sentence but it's exhausting and pointless, just had to do some of it due to Okiefreak making yet another outrageously baseless assertion with straight face.

Take care Xac and stay on this thread for more fun
:cheers2:

 

You didn't really think anyone was going to take that bet, did you?
History shows: Fanatics will be fanatics-- even if they have to kill themselves to prove it.

 

Introducing Mr Munhcausen


"What an insane person would ever doubt that I flew to Moon on cannonball or that Darwin's theory of evolution is scientifically valid "

 

I call stawman argument.

I never said you should believe me because i know nothing about the subject, i made no such argument, how silly.

Yes i admitted i am not an expert in biology, are you? My point is, you have actually made a claim yourself (even though you seem unaware at this point), and that claim is as follows "It is unreasonable and religious for people to believe in the theory of evolution" admittedly, those are not your exact words but it certainly was the claim you made.

Now, I have no such intention of proving evolutionism as scientifically valid. thats why I have stayed out of that debate, i am no expert in biology, or any science. The only thing i have conluded at all (in this debate), is that it is reasonable for a lay person to believe that evolution is a sound theory.

Remember i taught you, just because i cant prove something, it doesnt mean it doesn't exist. Now, the evidence i have in this subject, is the word of the scientific community and the conservative view, is that evolution is scientifically valid.

Now as i said, there is no evidence like with physics that i can show you with out you looking at the science yourself. But if it is the science you really want to argue, you should try and show what is wrong with the evidence they (the scientific community, biologists etc.) use to contend evolution is a valid theory.

I dont want to pretend i am a biologist, but at the same time there are many fields i do not understand, yet still exist. So far all you have had to contend your claim in that we are unreasonable to believe in evolution is that we cannot prove it.

Yet as i have shown, i hope, that conclusion does not follow from the premise, it is not correct to say, just because we cannot prove something, it must mean we have no grounds to believe in it.

If you want us to change our minds, give us evidence more compelling than what we have as lay people to believe in it in the first place, not empty rhetoric. Or if you want to show that evolutionism is not scientifically valid, show people who are an authority in the field where they have gone wrong.

Or is there are reason why you chose a philosophy/hippie forum and not a science one? i think okie is right, you want us to "recreate the wheel" and for that i commend you, but i dont have the will for that kind of self improvement

P.S.
I have started making clay animation in my spare time, so i wont be able to reply as often. Any way, keep people thinking jumbuli even if it can annoy them. :cheers2:

I hope you don't always find it pointless replying to my posts, i do try

 

Thanks for a lucid, well-expressed statement of what should be obvious to every intelligent person.

 

Second!