Well, aren't we a little pissy today... you accused me of willful ignorance and a prejudiced viewpoint so I stopped, took the time to explain what my thinking is and you come back with another accusation of stupidity or something.. what a mind you have, wow, what else are you going to educate us in today? I can hardly wait... no really...
Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
Well, aren't we a little pissy today... you accused me of willful ignorance and a prejudiced viewpoint so I stopped, took the time to explain what my thinking is and you come back with another accusation of stupidity or something.. what a mind you have, wow, what else are you going to educate us in today? I can hardly wait... no really...
Hee hee, understanding science would involve understanding that a good argument has to have good assumptions and good logic... if you examine the assumptions in all the "science" that is really just speculation with the trappings of science you will see that the assumptions are many and unproven and there is much circular reasoning...
if you get your panties all in a bunch because somebody doesn't share your belief system then that's your problem. Personally I'm really happy and I've done a lot of due diligence in developing my world view and it's worth the work... it's taken me 7 decades so far and I'm not slowing down...
I mean, just because somebody points out to you that your world view has a lot of reasoning flaws is not reason to get all shitty with thim
Well, the other worldview has owned the venue for all these debates for a good long time before scientific method came to dominate the scene. Feels like evidence of intellectual progress, innit?
You don't know what you are talkng about. There is no ignoring. First, the various radioactive time clocks overlap one another and validate one another. The readings are consistent with one another and within a relatively small margin or error. Next, as Dawkins points out on page 100 of his book to which I referred in my earlier post:
...you can't accuse the argument of being circular: at any moment somebody might dig up a mammal in Cambrian rocks, and the theory of evolution would be instantly blown apart if they did. Evolution, in other words, is a falsifiable, and therefore scientific, theory.
On page 147 of the same book, Dawkins goes on to say:
...But not a single solitary fossil has ever been found before it could have evolved. That is a very telling fact (and there is no reason why we should expect it on the creationist theory). As I briefly mentioned in Chapter 4, a good theory, a scientific theory, is one that is vulnerable to disproof, yet is not disproved. Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colors.
These arguments aren't about the big bang vs intelligent design, whatever the hell that is. It is an argument to confuse the masses and then to validate Christianity. The Christians don't care about the science or lack of science all they care about is furthering the cause of their religion and the intelligent design idea is just a tool for that purpose. Again it has nothing to do with science or discovery or knowledge it has to do with selling their religion.
In his book that I mentioned earlier, Dawkins also talks about "unintelligent design," as he refers to it. Specifically, there are numerous design inefficiencies in various species that are clearly the result of incremental tweaking that stem from plodding natural selection over time rather than a divine grand design. Whereas the "marginal cost," so to speak of the minute incremental changes over time do not otherwise affect survival, they can become peculiar in the fullness of time. However, natural selection (survival) would not tolerate major-overhaul-type back-to-the-drawing-board redesigns. And so, there they are. Although these inefficiencies may not affect survival, such imperfections do not suggest a divine creator, but rather the result of bottom-up tweaking that is characteristic of natural selection. Examples include the oddly "designed" laryngeal nerve, the vas deferens, the eye, and so on. Also, by way of example, whales, which had initially crossed over to land in a prior form and then reverted back to water, have tiny bones buried deep inside them which are remnants of the pelvic girdle and hind legs of their long-gone walking ancestors. Again, bottom-up tweaking over time consistent with natural selection, rather than top-down grand (and divine) design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://youtu.be/pbc7ee9u1JE