Anti evolutionists

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh beetle, you claim that there is no virtue in your poor atheistic being, once again you have shown otherwise, oh but i were born a noble Greek rather than a Scottish peasant farmer, my claim to nobility would lay safe in the ancestral legacy of reason and logic, with the spirit of Socrates i would descend upon measly opinion and subject it to the r ...[text shortened]... ready for winter, for greater forces than both are afoot and i must away with bickering prattle!

Ye go nowhere ye bletherin dunderheid, zugzwang! Popper is a helluva philosopher; try his "Alle Menschen sind Philosophen" and you will see asap why all the humans are philosophers however some of them are not good enough😵

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i didn't see reason yet in his posts. he claims evolution to be pseudo-science yet he doesn't explain why. he just uses quotes that he mostly doesn't understand (or uses them incorrectly). by his own views, evolution, like creationism cannot be proven or disproved. so they are both therefore unscientific.


however, he did said later that the world was n ...[text shortened]... magically disappear by god just before anyone could see them. this is definitely not science

I understand what you mean and what you say right now Big Z, but I do it coz I feel ok with you and I am not angry, insulted or anyway against you in person. Therefore I debate over an issue -your comment. If was pissed I would be tottaly incapable for a decent debate, I would be unable to react rationally, that is Z pal.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Is the book of Genesis really incompatible with evolution?

By the very nature of allegories, the question itself is misleading. The allegory doesn't need to be scientifically accurate to have value. In that sense, belief in both is compatible.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The point about theories dying over time is well taken.

Your charity is commendable but I find robbiecarrobie's persistent refusal to address rebuttals of his argument annoying in the extreme. I would limit myself to one pint with him and then go to another table.

Under circumstances I would do the same!

But in fact what You find annoying in the extreme is yourself
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Under circumstances I would do the same!

But in fact what You find annoying in the extreme is yourself
😵

Of course.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Of course.

And how you gonna spend this fine weekend Bosse? Vinyl big time, a pint or two, maybe a game and a superb lass, a lil surfin, or maybe some fast driving in the countryside or a track day??

Originally posted by black beetle
And how you gonna spend this fine weekend Bosse? Vinyl big time, a pint or two, maybe a game and a superb lass, a lil surfin, or maybe some fast driving in the countryside or a track day??

Heh, everything except the surfing. How about you?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Problems_and_issues

In the twentieth century, a hypothetico-deductive model for scientific method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below):

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then mo ...[text shortened]... s called affirming the consequent.


do this with evolution. tell me if you can disprove it.

This is one way how it has been proved by scientists using this stated scientific method:

…1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
.…

That is what the likes of Darwin did -he went to stage (1) from stage (2) because he encountered “new problems” when he “Looked for previous explanations” and found that the “intelligent design” hypothesis (if I my call it that) didn’t explain (or, to be more precise, I should say didn't “predict” rather than didn't “explain&ldquo😉 certain specific observations -thus he when to stage (2) to try and explain those observations.

…2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. ....…

That is what the likes of Darwin did -they formed a “conjecture” in the form of the theory of evolution.

…3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? ….

I am not sure if the likes of Darwin actually deduced this at the time but;
one of the consequences that would follow from evolution is that the design of living things would occasionally be imperfect due to the fact that evolution is an unintelligent process.

…4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.….

Taking into account the fact that what was considered to be the “alternative” at the time was “intelligent design” (if I my call it that); the “Test” that can be preformed in this case would be to find an example of an imperfect design of a living thing for, if such an example could be found, such an example would contradict the “intelligent design” hypothesis but confirm the “evolution” hypothesis (thus NO “affirming the consequent” logical error is made here).

A number of such examples have since been found -including the blind spot in the human eye.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Heh, everything except the surfing. How about you?

surfin in the net, that is🙂

Oh, together with my beautiful Maria. Some tempranillo in the evening by the fireplace, a glass of porto or of a pure Glenlivet in the night, a lil drive in the countryside at the mountains around Athens, some chess over here!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
This is one way how it has been proved by scientists using this stated scientific method:

[b]…1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
.…

That is what the likes of Darwin did -he went to stage (1) from stage (2) because h ...[text shortened]...

A number of such examples have since been found -including the blind spot in the human eye.[/b]

if i may, i don't agree with your 3. intelligent design doesn't have as consequence that creation is perfect. after all, death of living organisms is an obvious flaw, so if we hold creationism to be true, god from the start created flawed organisms.

also, the consequence of darwinism of imperfect beings appearing is really irrelevant. darwinism doesn't say that imperfect beings will appear, it says that "good enough" organisms will survive to pass on their genes. the reason why i say this is because if we observe a species today it is obvious it was good enough to survive because it is there to observe it.

in my opinion 3 should have been formulated as "no organism with traits totally opposed to the survival of the species will ever survive." and to prove that one would have to discover for example a fur less, totally uninsulated against the cold animal in the antarctic and watch it survive on its own in the antarctic cold for several generations. if it survives, then evolution is wrong and god took a personal interest in the fur-less weirdo creature. if that species dies out, then evolution is not disproved but still it is not proven. if you would read further in the link i provided, this method can only disprove a hypothesis, it cannot prove it or like einstein said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Originally posted by twhitehead
I did not say people on this site. My brother in law is one example of a creationist I know who has admitted to arguing against evolution using facts he knew to be false.

You on the other hand will never admit being wrong. Even when you essentially do admit it, you will not say the words "I was wrong".

There is line, where you think I am wrong, and where I do. Simply not
joining you on your side of that line does not make me wrong.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
There is line, where you think I am wrong, and where I do. Simply not
joining you on your side of that line does not make me wrong.
Kelly

Is it a ...straight line?
😵

Originally posted by Palynka
So you agree that accepting evolution (as part of a mechanism of God's creation) is not incompatible with being a Christian?

I can't speak for other Christians, but I accept evolution, as most scientist do. Thus I am a "Christian evolutionist".

Thus endeth the debate on whether or not the two are compatible.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I can't speak for other Christians, but I accept evolution, as most scientist do. Thus I am a "Christian evolutionist".

Thus endeth the debate on whether or not the two are compatible.

Most Christians I know accept evolution. I have no doubt that it is compatible with most mainstream forms of Christianity.

I was just hoping josephw could simply accept that it isn't incompatible.

Originally posted by Palynka
Most Christians I know accept evolution. I have no doubt that it is compatible with most mainstream forms of Christianity.

I was just hoping josephw could simply accept that it isn't incompatible.

i accept that it isn't!