Headteacher mocked for claiming evolution is not a fact

Started by josephpalazzo, February 03, 2016, 02:53:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 05:27:14 PM
What does gravity have to do with the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....?

Begging The Question (Fallacy): "evolution".  Again, what is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?

Again: "Similarities", "Resemblances", "Correlations"...aren't Science.


Begging The Question (Fallacy) again.  SEE above: What is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution...?

Sorry for repeating this.  My intent is not to be obtuse but nobody has posted a response to what should be a very simple query.
If I wanted to provide evidence for duccolslopoelgerts it follows logically that I need to "define" what duccolslopoelgerts are, first.

Yes thanks, I know that.

I'm not sure if you are dense or simply ignorant, or possibly just trolling.

The reason I gave you the example with gravity is to make you aware of what constitute "facts" and what constitute a "scientific theory", If you haven't understood that simple distinction, then I'm talking to someone who is less intelligent than my 5 year-old nephew, because I have absolutely no difficulty of making him understand that much.

Second, you have the facts of gravity that needs an explanation. If bodies were to accelerate at any rate under free fall, you would NOT need an explanation. But the fact that they all fall under the same acceleration regardless of mass, composition, shape, and so on, requires an explanation. And that explanation is the theory of gravity, first proposed by Newton, then modified by Einstein. Are we on the same page in regard to why there is need of a theory to explain certain facts? If not, then you are an imbecile, and I'm wasting my time.

A similar situation exists with fossils that have been unearthed for the last 200+ years by scientists from all over the planet. There are literally millions of these fossils that exist in hundreds of  institutions, museums, and universities. The remarkable thing is that there is a progression in variations from species to species - some of those species are extinct, some are not. And therefore this requires an explanation. And maybe to your sadness, but to the joy of people who love science,  this progression can be explained at the molecular level (gene drift and mutation), in terms of survival (natural selection, adaption), and with flow charts (common ancestry). Not only that but the theory of evolution is supported by:

- Biochemistry, which is the study of the basic chemistry and processes that occur in cells, the biochemistry of all living things on Earth is incredibly similar, showing that all of Earth’s organisms share a common ancestry.

- Comparative anatomy, which is the comparison of the structures of different living things. This figure compares the skeletons of humans, cats, whales, and bats, illustrating how similar they are even though these animals live unique lifestyles in very different environments. The best explanation for similarities like the ones among these skeletons is that the various species on Earth evolved from common ancestors.

- Biogeography, the study of living things around the globe. Basically, if evolution is real, you’d expect groups of organisms that are related to one another to be clustered near one another because related organisms come from the same common ancestor.

On the other hand, if evolution isn’t real, there’s no reason for related groups of organisms to be found near one another. When biogeographers compare the distribution of organisms living today or those that lived in the past (from fossils), they find that species are distributed around Earth in a pattern that reflects their genetic relationships to one another.

- Comparative embryology compares the embryos of different organisms. The embryos of many animals, from fish to humans, show similarities that suggest a common ancestor.

- Molecular biology focuses on the structure and function of the molecules that make up cells. Molecular biologists have compared gene sequences among species, revealing similarities among even very different organisms.

- Paleontology is the study of prehistoric life through fossil evidence. The fossil record (all the fossils ever found and the information gained from them) shows detailed evidence of the changes in living things through time.


Daniel2021

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 23, 2016, 05:50:10 PM
As far as obtuse and stupid go I'm willing to withhold judgement until more evidence comes in. In the meantime my money is on just another fucking asshole.

My word sir.

Oh and by the way (for the followers), I will not be responding to 3rd grade playground name calling. If the mood swings you to post them, I will not respond.  I'll afford you the same courtesy.

QuoteAs far as what the theory of evolution is no one on this forum could possibly explain it all in a post. That would literally take volumes of books.

I didn't say explain it, just post the "Scientific Theory" is all.


QuoteEvolution in a nutshell has already been explained in this thread. It is decent with modification.

This is not a Scientific Theory.  Scientific Theories are validated/confirmed hypothesis.  They explain...."The How" (Mechanisms/Process).

QuoteEvolution is also an observed fact. It has been observed and documented many many times.

Then it should be a cakewalk to post the Scientific Theory of it then.


QuoteAnd please before you get into the whole micro/macro thing be prepared to explain the mechanism that stops small changes from accumulating into larger ones.

I will attempt to restrain myself from Equivocating.

QuoteFinally, what are these holes you speak of?

Well it doesn't follow logically that I'm obtuse and stupid as a result of you not being able to answer a question.



drunkenshoe

"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are good people and bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides." Havelock Vetinari

Daniel2021

Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 23, 2016, 05:55:35 PM
I'm not sure if you are dense or simply ignorant, or possibly just trolling.

Ahh yes, the ad hominems.

QuoteThe reason I gave you the example with gravity is to make you aware of what constitute "facts" and what constitute a "scientific theory",

How about just posting the "Scientific Theory' of evolution and drop the ad hominems and theatrics?

I already know what a Scientific Theory is, thanks for your concern however.


QuoteNot only that but the theory of evolution is supported by:

Again, Begging The Question (Fallacy): "evolution".

QuoteBiochemistry, which is the study of the basic chemistry and processes that occur in cells, the biochemistry of all living things on Earth is incredibly similar, showing that all of Earth’s organisms share a common ancestry.

Good to know.  Common Ancestry??

If the ancestry is not assumed from similarities, then there is no correlation between similarities and ancestry; ergo, to make the argument you need to make that "assumption".

All you have is a TEXTBOOK.....Affirming The Consequent (Formal Fallacy):

If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.

The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag"  Post Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Similarity/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Post Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.

Or

If Common Ancestry is True we will Observe Similarities.
We Observe Similarities.
Therefore, Common Ancestry is True.

1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.

Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries?

As mentioned previously: Similarities, Resemblances, Correlations...aren't Science.


Quote- Paleontology is the study of prehistoric life through fossil evidence. The fossil record (all the fossils ever found and the information gained from them) shows detailed evidence of the changes in living things through time.

What's their "Independent Variable" used to Validate/Confirm??  Eyelids, Angle of the Shovel, Imagination??

regards

drunkenshoe

Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 06:23:21 PM
I already know what a Scientific Theory is, thanks for your concern however.

Among all those field examples joseph gave, only paleontology bugged you? Because all of them should be problematic for you in the same sense, if you understand what is 'scientific theory'.

You don't know what is science or theory, let alone what is scientific theory.






"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are good people and bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides." Havelock Vetinari

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 06:23:21 PM
Ahh yes, the ad hominems.

There was no hominem as my statement is an IF statement.

QuoteHow about just posting the "Scientific Theory' of evolution and drop the ad hominems and theatrics?


I have but you skipped to common ancestry. Now, go back and read the full post.

QuoteI already know what a Scientific Theory is, thanks for your concern however.


So far, you've shown the opposite.


QuoteIf the ancestry is not assumed from similarities, then there is no correlation between similarities and ancestry; ergo, to make the argument you need to make that "assumption".


That there is a progression from fossils to fossils is an observation, not an assumption. Have you ever examine these fossils? I have. But I can see that you haven't. So you're talking with not knowing what is at stakes. So get out of your closet and do some investigations as you are embarrassing yourself.



QuoteIf P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.

The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag"  Post Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Similarity/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Post Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.


Well, here we go:


If God exists, then he created the world.
It is true the world exists.
Therefore God exists is true.


So you see, two can play at the same game. However, the argument that I gave you is not found on that kind of logic. It's based on the notion that certain facts require an explanation. I gave you two examples: gravity and evolution. But you chose to ignore that. Your loss.



aitm

Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 01:29:00 PM
So the "facts"/evidence of evolution = a gazillion fossils.  Then....

The "theory" of evolution explains those gazillion fossils.  Are you saying the "theory" of evolution explains Permineralization - Petrification?  Isn't that the process of fossilization?

What is the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....?

thanks

Oh stop with the posturing, that's not what he said. You're mis-representation of his statement is boring. Welcome to the forum. Try a new angle, that one won't work for long…at all, and it is more becoming a troll than an "earnest" seeker of which I am sure you are.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Hijiri Byakuren

Fossils, strictly speaking, aren't necessarily evidence of evolution. However, evolution can be proven without fossils, and in fact the basis of the theory is entirely rooted in biology. The fact that fossil evidence lines up with evolutionary theory is more icing on the cake than anything else.


Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
Black lives matter, feminism is good, religion is bullshit, and if you disagree with me on any of these points you are a fucking moron.<br /><br />Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Baruch

Quote from: Daniel2021 on February 23, 2016, 05:32:30 PM
So since you can't post the "Scientific Theory" of evolution....I'm obtuse, and stupid ??  I think there's some holes in your thesis.

regards

This was very well answered in reply #23.  Do you have a problem with what "scientific" is or what "theory" is?  I suspect you don't, you just like to argue.  Evidence from both macro and micro biology, substantiate the evolution hypothesis ... into a evolution theory.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2016, 08:25:03 PM
This was very well answered in reply #23.  Do you have a problem with what "scientific" is or what "theory" is?  I suspect you don't, you just like to argue.  Evidence from both macro and micro biology, substantiate the evolution hypothesis ... into a evolution theory.
He is simply a drive-by whose only intent is to stir up the ant heap.  When a person launches directly into an 'argument' without introducing themselves and giving any indication that they mean to stay and exchange ideas, then they are a troll.  If he had any real interest in the exchange of ideas he could easily look up old threads that have addressed this issue.  But he has not interest in that sort of give and take.  He is only a troll.   
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

SGOS

He also accused me of not providing the theory, when in fact I had stated the theory in simplified form in the very post he was responding to me.  It's like throughout the thread, he scans for quotes that he can object too with one creationist talking point or another, but when coming across information he doesn't want, he goes into a coma.

For some reason, he tunes the theory out, even when it's been posted, paraphrased, or explained by different people for him.  For some reason, he has taken into his head, that no one can explain the theory of evolution, and when they do, he keeps repeating that no one can explain it.

I could understand if he tried to point out a flaw in the theory, but he keeps coming back to the flat out assertion that no one has stated the theory.  And I'm perplexed as to why he hangs on to such a silly claim when there are better arguments he could make.  Not that they would be good arguments, but certainly better than that one silly assertion, which he can't seem to get out of his head.

Ahh, debating for Jesus.  You don't need to win.  But you still earn valuable coupons that can be redeemed at the gates of Heaven.

SGOS

When you think about it, it's odd that the creationist position is defended with so much vigor.  It seems like it would be easier to deny the Big Bang, based on the fact that we don't know what caused it.  Just put your god into the equation at that point, and forget about all the rest.  Because if a god created the universe, by extension, he created everything.  You don't have to defend your version of the origin of the species.  One way or the other, Goddidit!  The water, the sky, the stars, wind and tides, all become acts of god.  Why get caught up in the claims like God created kangaroos on day 5?  You just invite ridicule by immersing yourself into details, which are far too many to keep track of.

There is enough poetic sounding contradictory fiddle faddle in the Bible that you can easily apologize for it like you do about what Jesus had to say about this and that.  Something doesn't fit?  Just ignore it, and chalk it up to God's mysterious plan.

josephpalazzo

The creationist position is about undermining science. It's the same mindset that denies global warming (God will save the planet) or evolution (God created Adam and Eve). God decides everything ( God micro-manages every detail in the universe, even when you take a piss). He acts in mysterious ways, so how dare you question what he does!!

SGOS

Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 08:18:14 AM
The creationist position is about undermining science.

This becomes apparent when you realize creationism does no research of it's own. It tries to pass as science, but ignores the method.  It's methodology is to sit on the sidelines and take pot shots.  It's a process not designed to arrive at discovery, as if all important discoveries are either revealed in the Bible, or will become clear in the afterlife.  There is no mechanism included that leads to new knowledge, discovery, or verification.  It's not a science, it's pure anti-science.  Yet it wants to be included in science classes.  LOL