"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Sarky

Even if he refuses to learn, his tragic lack of understanding is a great springboard for others to share their knowledge with people who ARE interested. Some day we can take this thread, remove every one of J C's and dead one's and mickrock's posts, and the amount of fascinating knowledge left will be a beautiful thing indeed.

mickrock

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The point of dlofnep's questions (IMO) is that not only can you not show why the evolutionary explanation is wrong, neither can you offer any alternative explanation of these observations in a way which fits the available evidence.

The onus is on Darwinists to prove the theory can explain what it claims to.

As far as I can see, evolution is just assumed to have happened by Darwinian means. It's almost accepted as a self evident truth.

Sarky

You're not looking very far then. Try harder. We've provided shedloads of evidence in this thread.

Delirium

mickrock wrote: »

The onus is on Darwinists to prove the theory can explain what it claims to.

As far as I can see, evolution is just assumed to have happened by Darwinian means. It's almost accepted as a self evident truth.

and why is there no onus on you to prove your claims? You could at least try to participate in the standard that you yourself demand. It's just good manners.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

[...] the amount of fascinating knowledge left will be a beautiful thing indeed.

Couldn't agree more -- this thread has been an eye-opener on so many levels for me anyway.

Thanks to everybody who contributes their time and knowledge.

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

The onus is on Darwinists to prove the theory can explain what it claims to.

As far as I can see, evolution is just assumed to have happened by Darwinian means. It's almost accepted as a self evident truth.

I'm not a 'Darwinist'. I just accept it as the best explanation I've come across thus far. The mechanism makes sense, and is demonstrable. (Don't ask for examples.There's a thread full of that.)

I'm open to a better explanation. If you have one, fire away.

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

The onus is on Darwinists to prove the theory can explain what it claims to.

It's been explained to you in bite-sized pieces and you don't appear to be interested in making an honest effort to understand any of it. If you are interested in learning, then please say so.

BTW, you made a claim earlier on today and you were asked to justify it or withdraw it -- please do so.

Beruthiel

Sarky wrote: »

Some day we can take this thread, remove every one of J C's and dead one's mickrock's posts

We should do that asap!

We shall soon be reaching the 10k user comments cut off point.
You know what that means.....

oldrnwisr

mickrock wrote: »

The onus is on Darwinists to prove the theory can explain what it claims to.

As far as I can see, evolution is just assumed to have happened by Darwinian means. It's almost accepted as a self evident truth.

You still don't understand what theory means in science do you? A theory is never proven because it is not a mathematical construct. It is an explanatory framework which seeks to distill a number of observed facts into a coherent explanation. It's not a guess or a hunch.

However, insofar as natural selection is a positive claim in debating terms, this thread is filled with pages of posts detailing the evidence for natural selection as well as innumerable scientific papers to support the claim. You seem to be unwilling or incapable to acknowledge this fact, however, since you have made no attempt to point out any flaws in any of the evidence presented. You just keep repeating the same soundbite over and over as if, somehow, people will eventually just accept it.

Finally, no, evolution wasn't just assumed to have occurred. It has survived the crucible of scientific rigour. 150 years of experimentation, peer-review and a mountain of evidence like you wouldn't believe has given evolution credibility not because it's easier to assume that it's correct because it isn't.

Sarky

Good point Beruthiel. Hopefully robin/Dades can apply a "survival of the fittest"* approach to the thread. It would likely half in size if J C's crap alone was weeded out...


*Yes, I know it's technically inaccurate, but it feels appropriate.

kiffer

The person that gets the 10,000th post wins the thread? Settling the argument once and for all.

Sarky

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Finally, no, evolution wasn't just assumed to have occurred. It has survived the crucible of scientific rigour. 150 years of experimentation, peer-review and a mountain of evidence like you wouldn't believe has given evolution credibility not because it's easier to assume that it's correct because it isn't.

Non-scientists so rarely understand this. We haven't spent the last 150 years proving evolution. We've spent the last 150 years trying our best to disprove it. And failing. It's one of the sturdiest theories humanity has ever come up with. The best minds of each generation have tried to tear it apart, and they can't f*cking dent it.

endacl

Sarky wrote: »

Yes, I know it's technically inaccurate, but it feels appropriate.

May be technically inaccurate.

There's your hypothesis. Now experiment, test, and review results.

That would be a scientific method. Might even result in a theory.

Bannasidhe

endacl wrote: »

I'm not a 'Darwinist'. I just accept it as the best explanation I've come across thus far. The mechanism makes sense, and is demonstrable. (Don't ask for examples.There's a thread full of that.)

I'm open to a better explanation. If you have one, fire away.

^^
This. + 1.

Sarky

Technically inaccurate, depending on whether "fittest" means what you think it means, then.

J C used to equate it with Nazism. But, eh, he was a couple of basepairs short of a chromosome...

Bannasidhe

Beruthiel wrote: »

We should do that asap!

We shall soon be reaching the 10k user comments cut off point.
You know what that means.....

Someone will have to come up with a pithy title for part deux?

Sarky

Can't go wrong with Electric Boogaloo.

mickrock

Sarky wrote: »

We've spent the last 150 years trying our best to disprove it. And failing. It's one of the sturdiest theories humanity has ever come up with. The best minds of each generation have tried to tear it apart, and they can't f*cking dent it.

Have you ever considered doing stand up comedy?

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

Can't go wrong with Electric Boogaloo.

Evolution Boogaloo?

:pac:

Sarky

mickrock wrote: »

Have you ever considered doing stand up comedy?

That's not very nice. There's no need to be rude just because you don't understand evolutionary biology.

Sarky

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Evolution Boogaloo?

:pac:

Dance Dance Evolution?

Bannasidhe

mickrock wrote: »

Have you ever considered doing stand up comedy?

Have you?

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

Dance Dance Evolution?

In before the Creationists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XiyGZTvC9I

dlofnep

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The point of dlofnep's questions (IMO) is that not only can you not show why the evolutionary explanation is wrong, neither can you offer any alternative explanation of these observations in a way which fits the available evidence.

Correct.

mickrock

David Berlinski makes some good points here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

dlofnep

mickrock wrote: »

David Berlinski makes some good points here:

Look - We might start taking you seriously when you can define what we mean when we use the term 'species'. Until then, you're not in a position to debate the topic of evolution, because it's absolutely essential to understand what a species is before you understand how evolution works.

There is no point coming on here, telling us why something is incorrect - unless you're in a position to offer an alternative answer of depth. You are incapable of doing that.

There is not a single Creationist on this planet that can form a coherent argument against Evolution by natural selection. So I seriously doubt you can be the shining light, when your grasp of biology is on par with a 6 year old.

endacl

dlofnep wrote: »

Look - We might start taking you seriously when you can define what we mean when we use the term 'species'. Until then, you're not in a position to debate the topic of evolution, because it's absolutely essential to understand what a species is before you understand how evolution works.

There is no point coming on here, telling us why something is incorrect - unless you're in a position to offer an alternative answer of depth. You are incapable of doing that.

There is not a single Creationist on this planet that can form a coherent argument against Evolution by natural selection. So I seriously doubt you can be the shining light, when your grasp of biology is on par with a 6 year old.

^^
Beaten to it.

Bannasidhe

dlofnep wrote: »

Look - We might start taking you seriously when you can define what we mean when we use the term 'species'. Until then, you're not in a position to debate the topic of evolution, because it's absolutely essential to understand what a species is before you understand how evolution works.

There is no point coming on here, telling us why something is incorrect - unless you're in a position to offer an alternative answer of depth. You are incapable of doing that.

There is not a single Creationist on this planet that can form a coherent argument against Evolution by natural selection. So I seriously doubt you can be the shining light, when your grasp of biology is on par with a 6 year old.

My 6 year old granddaughter will be very insulted by that statement.

doctoremma

mickrock wrote: »

David Berlinski makes some good points here:

I got as far as "Gaps in the fossil record are evidence against evolution".

doctoremma

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My 6 year old granddaughter will be very insulted by that statement.

I'm pretty sure your 6 year old granddaughter could have a pop at what a coccyx used to be as well.