Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

Okiefreak made an analogy of Flat Earthers not accepting the evidence of Earth having round shape, not of Flat Earthers disputing Gravity.
To which I responded that his analogy was invalid, that Earth being round is self-evident as can be seen in pics taken from space (and aside from other evidences in support of it being round shaped) and that I never denied things that are self-evident.

Gravity is a good explanation for mechanism responsible for shape of Earth (unlike hoax perpetrating darwinists theory about evolution),
but aside from that just the description or shape of something is not by default an evidence of mechanism responsible for it's emergence in the first place.

For example, your wife can make a dough and give it a round shape.
Some imbecile such as Okiefreak might look at it and say it's square, which self evidently it is not.

But the mere evidence of the object and confirmation of it's proper description is not in itself an evidence of mechanism responsible for it's shape (in case of Earth it would be gravity and not your wife, of course).

In biology we have evidence of fossils and various genoms, all of them sharing various characteristics to various degrees.

That evidence (of fossils and genoms) is undisputable, only an idiot will deny the fact that fossils exist and are what they are or that genoms are what they are observed to be.

What is being doubted here is the conclusion reached based on such evidence.


Unlike the gravity (in case of round Earth) or your wife (in case of round dough), the cause or mechanism responsible for origins and evolution of especies have not been discovered yet (or if it was, then the relevant evidence and plausible argument are lacking so far to overcome reasonable doubt of validity of such assertion).

Simple as that.

 

You are once again redifining definitions to try and wriggle out of your own logic trap.

Gravity is a reasonable explanation for the general sphericity of planetary masses that is corroborated in countless ways
But no one has yet managed to show the real existence of the graviton. "Gravity" is a description of the mechanism involved.

Just Like Evolution is a resonable explanation for the diversity of life that is corroborated in countless ways. 'Evolution" is a description of the mechanism involved.

Both valid theories that are relatively correct.

Your discredit lies in your inconsistantcy

 

Well that and his obvious paranoia, I find the idea he thinks every believer in evolution is deliberatley perpetuating a hoax... im tired.

 

Well, I'm fuckin' happy!

today is the first day of the rest of my life!!!

 

Evidently, you are the one doing that and here is why

I never disputed that Gravity is a reasonable explanation for round shape of Earth.

What I doubt is what the hoax perpetrating darwinists call "scientifically valid theory" to explain origins and evolution of species.

The problem is it is not "just like", it's a hoax because no one so far advanced any relevant evidence or plausible argument to sustain such assertion.

No, not both. One is but the other is nothing but a hoax, for reasons i repeated so many times that there is no need to write it again.

Now if you had reading comprehension skills of third grader in elementary school i would advise you to read above and see for yourself who is consistent and who is not.

However, i can not expect such a feat from someone whose IQ score is measured in single digits (as evident to me from reading your posts), therefore discussion of this subject with you is hereby closed and i will wait for yet another fool to follow your inglorious path.

Next!

 

You say that, you've said it a lot, but I'm starting to doubt that you have done it.

 

Xac,
please cure me of my "obvious paranoia" by answering the following simple question:

If you are not perpetrating a hoax nor have religious dogma worshipping attitude towards darwinism, then how come you insist it to be scientifically valid theory yet upon request to show proof you openly admit not to have a clue as to why this theory must be accepted as scientifically valid, other than your having pure faith in those who claim it is?

 

Well if anything i have a "religious" belief in the scientific community if thats what you are getting at. I never said that i knew evolution to be valid, only that it was reasonable to believe in.

But if you would prefer i could be even more blind and believe your paranoid assertion. I have much more reasons to believe evolutionists than I do you, starting with peer review and ending with my own observations of the world. None of which proves either way the validity of evolution, such is the limitations of lay people.

Now, if you are unable to prove scientific validity of quantum mechanics, are we to stop believing it exists? should we assert that it must not? Should we condemn the physicists that failed to prove it at my level of understanding as hoax perpetuating religious zealots? of course not that would be paranoid! :cheers2:

P.S.
I have no inclination to attempt to fix your paranoia

 

Well, let me first start with reiterating the fact that this subject thread is not about me.
So even if you repeat countless times that i have paranoia, leprosy, aids and what not and even if you are absolutely correct in such assertions, it still has nothing to do with validating the darwinists assertion that the dogma they worship has anything to do with the science.

Also note that this subject is not about me having to prove anything, but it is all about obligation of those who make Positive Assertion to also back it up, or else they have none to begin with.

Simple as that.

See above in re: to ad hominem argument.

As to existing phenomenas, again , i never deny existence of anything that can be observed.

I merely doubt the explanation given if it lacks relevance and plausibility.

"Darwinism is valid simply because otherwise it must be God who created the man" .
I don't buy arguments like that.

Nor do i buy arguments such as "it's valid because i have religious faith in scientific community".

There can be no religious faith in scientific community, that's an oxymoron by definition.

The advancement of science would be impossible and it's condition would be most grave if such attitudes were shared by all.

 

Xac,
You've proven the point to all rational individuals.

Who gives a crap what jumbulli believes. he's stated that his belief has the wieght of physical evidence.
But psychoss has no mass...
And he's afraid to admitt his position. it must be damned embarrasing!

"you don't know what i've seen in my dreams..."
--jumbulli55

 

Ad hominem abusive

Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

Examples:

"You can't believe Jack when he says God exists. He doesn't even have a job."
"Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."

 

I don't remember stating you have leprosy or aids, do you?

As much as you may rant about my obligations, you have not said anything clever or shown anything, at all, even holes in evolutionism, which you seem fixated on.

And as much as you rant about my obligations, does not make it true, I did not assert anything, only answered your many questions. Those questions a failed attempt at reasoning (because the reasoning was faulty to begin with). Again argue with biologists within the field who assert evolutionism, thats your real debate.

Now to make this a little less subtle, my interest is only maintained by your fixation on this subject and your whacky perspective on the reasons why people may feel otherwise. Thats right, this subject has bored the shit out of me, i am at this point, as i have been since i started putting my 2 cents in, interested in your bizzarre perspective.

You're not suggesting i don't know what ad hominem means are you? because if so, you are being VERY repetitive...

Yes we've been over that, it is a false dillema and it is not my point of view, so don't bother with it in replying to me. Although interestingly enough i also don't see why both can't coexist either.

So why don't you just fuck off with your "Darwinism is perpetuated by hoax and religious faith" rhetoric if you believe that the scientific community (which the majority support evolution) are by definition perpetuated by knowledge and logic instead of faith?

Remember When using the terms "religious" and "faith" i am merely using the words YOU used to describe those who believe that the scientific community is competent!

Well i agree, considering you are using a staw man argument to create my position. And i understand that the position you have created for me is easier to argue against, but it does not adress anything I have said, only the thing YOU PRETEND i have said, you may well be better off arguing on your computer without an internet connection.

I would also like to sum up the previous point by adding, you have no place attacking the scientific community and method and at the same time pretend you are also for the scientific community.

I would also like to add that your position that everyone who believes in evolution is either perpetuating a haox or are somehow religiously attached to the argument is nothing short of completely absurd.

Myself for example have no emotional attachment, I believe in God either way, if anything evolution is an obstacle to my actual religous belief system, so i have no desire for religous reasons to support Darwin.

And if i am involved in a conspiracy to perpetuate the "Darwin hoax" than some one forget to tell me the secret handshake

 

Your post is non-sequiter. your facts are uncoordinated.
But aren't they all?

we were here when Xac taught you the meaning of ad hominem attack. Remember?

but crying won't help you now. you use ignorance as a defense. "I didn't see it and everybody else is a liar!"

Prime Computation: D + I = M

 

No, but even if you do and i have, it would be irrelevant to argument.

I actually asked quite a few unanswered yet questions and you can check some on parrallel thread (asked of monkey boy two days ago, he must be busy creating excuses to avoid answering them. See "Evolution is a valid theory" thread).

If you have no assertion to begin with then what point are you arguing ?
As to questions, when questioned to the point of having to explain why darwinism is valid all you offered was "i don't know why but i believe those who say it is"

No, I am not going to do that and you know why (have addressed this at least 5 times already in previous replies to your suggestion).

Well, my true perspective on it is that I don't know the mechanism responsible for evolution.

What really drives me nuts is when evolutionists come over and start asserting that the theory they believe in is so freakin valid that anyone who doubts it, no matter why, is an idiot.

This thread (and couple of other threads with similar arguments) is the result of my challenge to evolutionists to either back up their assertion or else to back off and let everyone form their own opinion without calling those who doubt it morons and idiots.

I don't know if you know or not, but that's what it is.

I didn't say that that particular point was yours, i said i don't buy certain kind of arguments which are perennially repeated by darwinists.

First of all i can tell you go fuck yourself and then some more.
But it's not my intention to turn this argument into battle of insults over the internet.

In my opinion resorting to foul language is a mere digression and clearly demonstrates weakness of your position.

If you have argument or disagree on something related to logic and science then use your brain and explain your opinion rationally.
If you want to have a fight then put on a pair of gloves and go to the ring or just blow your nose on the street, but stay away from arguing about scientific validity of the theory in question.


As to what I wrote, i pointed out that there can be no religious faith in scientific community, that it's an oxymoron by definition.

When you have a faith it's already a religion and not a science.
Simple as that.

See above

I don't know whom you refer to , but evidently you are either not reading my posts or simply failing to comprehend single word i write.

You have no place telling me what i believe and what i doubt.
Let's start with that.

As to what i am for, i am neither for nor against any community, though SCIENCE itself i hold in high esteem.

And if anyone comes up and tells me i must believe something is scientifically valid or else i am an idiot then they better back up their assertion.

Well then why don't you show rational grpounds (not inverse ad hominem argument) of your belief that it's scientifically valid theory?

It's very hard at this point to believe that you have no emotional attachment to this subject, particularly in ligh of your latest outbursts.

As to God, I don't think God is the central piece of darwinistic theory therefore I consider any mention of God in this discourse to have zero relevance to the subject matter of this particular discussion and therefore needless to comment.

I don't know what you are involved in nor do i have any desire to find out.

What i do is doubt the scientific validity of the theory in question and no one so far was able to show that my doubt is irrational.

 

"no one" may not have shown your doubt is irrational, But EVERYONE ELSE has!

 

UFO is a rocketplane that flies on horsepoop.

 

Actually i gave you a solid argument on why it is reasonable for a lay person to believe in evolution. And i think i have already defined my position within this argument quite clearly. That is to dismantle your assertion that everyone that believes in evolution is a religious nut or involved in some conspiracy.

Didn't read it, i don't read every page of this monster debate, but i am definatley curious, maybe i will look it up, maybe...

Nor do I, I make no claim as to know the origins of life, only that it is reasonable for a lay person to believe in evolution

I feel quite the same about your assumptions of me based on my belief in evolutionism, but apparantaly I'm not suffering from the same amount of concern for others opinions as you are.

I dont really care if you believe in evolutionism, creationism, both or neither, i just didnt like the context in which you used the term "validity" i never expected i would make this many replies to you about this subject/

I'm pretty sure i've only called you an idiot because of your arguments i don't think i have once attacked your arguments because i think your an idiot. Not that i actually think you're an idiot, but you should understand that even if i did it is not an ad hominem argument, because i am not attacking your argument based on your character, rather your character based on your arguments.

Ok a bad argument is a bad argument than, if it has nothing to do with me, than i don't know what your point was (i do but i will assume it in conclusion to this post).

Nor was it my attention, you should take less offense to colourful language, as it is still an argument and to claim that....

... is actually an ad hominem attack.

That is you are saying my argument is weak based on the language i used to express it rather than acknowledging the argument itself, ironic huh?

I probably would stay out if i were convinced there was any sort of productive discussion/argument going on here. In the mean time, i feel i will use this discussion to further understand you, which has been the source of my entertainment thus far in this discussion.

Yes but you are the one who associated belief in the competency of the scientific community as a religious one, and i can give you MOUNTAINS of evidence, even as a lay person, quite easily to show that it is not.

Well next time you have faith the train is going to be there on time, you might want to suggest to the citry metro to ask the govn. for tax exemption.

But really, these words "religious" and "faith" are used by you to discredit those who disagree with you and aren't my invention to explain my understanding on why i think the scientific community is competent.

Your premise for your argument is irrelevant as it is purely a point of equivocation as YOU define "religious" and "faith" and YOU apply its meaning to my position without taking into account either what i have actually said or the meaning of the words you use.

Surely a man of your self assurance would not reply to another that you thought unable to comprehend your writings? I think this is an ad hominem attack on my claim that you are using straw man arguments

How much easier it is to attack my ability to comprehend than it is to attack my actualy argument

Well lets not argue about place right now, we have a lot on our plate as it is, but i do feel i have the right to point out when you're being a hypocrite

Well clearly you are atleast against any community that would associate itself with evolution or Darwin.

I feel the same about people who assert that I am (or others are) a religous nut or conspirator simply for trusting the scientific communities competency (which is supported by MOUNTAINS of evidence).

I wrote a wonderful argument on why it is reasonable to trust an appeal to authority such as the scientific community, although in a few weeks i can go into more detail as i will have more time. Having said that, i don't know if evolution must be correct, i do have good reason to believe it is probable.

Than you have made a gross over estimation, i have no care to correct it, but i still may say "fuck" every now and then, deal with it.

Yes, that is quite conveniant, that way you can ignore my disgust at your constant association of Darwin with "religous" belief.

Well ill tell you anyway, i stayed up last night finishing a history essay, but im sure you still think i am part of some Darwin conspiracy

Yes you are very good at doubting, i wonder if you do much else, of course this last line still perplexes me. If you wanted to be shown that Darwins theories were scientifically invalid, why in the world wouldn't you be arguing with people that could actually satisfy you that you are right?

In conclusion you are frustrated by the acceptance of evolution for reasons you don't understand. You are further frustrated by the tendancy of humans to "group think" which leaves you with out any avenue to pursue your arguments and has landed you here on HF's.

This is not very useful to you as no one here can satisfy your questions, which by either concious or subconcious design you have chosen to avoid, and here you are arguing with me, a man that puts very little thought into evolution outside of his interactions with you

 

Your conclusion is not accurate.
I do understand and know the reason of what you call my "frustration".

It is not that evolution is accepted by a group of people (after all it's not the only religion out there and you will rarely see me arguing with religious people).

What really frustrates me is when i am told that :

A) It is not a religion but scientific theory (without anyone actually backing up such assertion)
B) That I am an idiot if i doubt it's validity.

 

And that's the crux of this bullshit, have a nice life :cheers2:

 

Call it all you want, it is what it is (darwinism = a. religious theory, wishful fantasy of one man called C. Darwin. Has many followers. Currently has acquired the status of dogma).

:cheers2: