Posts: 66410
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 12:38 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 12:39 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
This chucklehead thinks he has a competent criticism of evolutionary explanations, but can’t figure out how words work.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 9914
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 12:44 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 12:52 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(August 7, 2019 at 12:37 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 12:34 pm)Grandizer Wrote: You still think a theory is no different from a hypothesis ...
You have the wrong idea of what a theory is. You really do.
If we're both saying that theories and hypotheses are their own separate category, how am I wrong? We're agreeing lol. Either we're both right, or we're both wrong.
Quote:“Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge. The meaning of the term scientific theory as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid.”
Evolution is a scientific fact. If you have a hypothesis that evolution via natural selection cannot account for the human eye, that is a proposition you are responsible for demonstrating. Coming to an atheist forum and whining, “Well, how do you explain this?” is not demonstrating the truth of your claim. It’s a textbook argument from personal incredulity. Or, colloquially, shit reasoning.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 1697
Threads: 15
Joined: August 2, 2019
Reputation:
6
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 12:48 pm
(August 7, 2019 at 12:44 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Evolution is a scientific fact. If you have a hypothesis that evolution via natural selection cannot account for the human eye, that is a proposition you are responsible for demonstrating. Coming to an atheist forum and whining, “Well, how do you explain this?” is not demonstrating the truth of your claim. It’s a textbook argument from personal incredulity. Or, colloquially, shit reasoning.
I don't have any hypothesis that evolution via natural selection cannot account for the human eye. Read the OP again ma'am.
Posts: 6607
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 12:48 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 12:53 pm by GrandizerII.)
(August 7, 2019 at 12:37 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 12:34 pm)Grandizer Wrote: You still think a theory is no different from a hypothesis ...
You have the wrong idea of what a theory is. You really do.
If we're both saying that theories and hypotheses are their own separate category, how am I wrong? We're agreeing lol. Either we're both right, or we're both wrong.
Read post #448 - https://atheistforums.org/thread-59486-p...pid1924981
You're echoing what I've said, while saying I'm wrong.
Not at all. You erroneously think theories don't need to be well-established. We don't agree!
Learn the distinction between theory and hypothesis, man ... Google if you must
Posts: 1697
Threads: 15
Joined: August 2, 2019
Reputation:
6
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 12:53 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 12:56 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)
(August 7, 2019 at 12:48 pm)Grandizer Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 12:37 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: If we're both saying that theories and hypotheses are their own separate category, how am I wrong? We're agreeing lol. Either we're both right, or we're both wrong.
Read post #448 - https://atheistforums.org/thread-59486-p...pid1924981
You're echoing what I've said, while saying I'm wrong.
Not at all. You erroneously think theories don't need to be well-established. We don't agree!
Well right, I already said that's the part we don't agree on lol. To me, it doesn't make sense how you think a theory can be wrong and well-established at the same time. If theories remain theories despite evidence against them, (they're not demoted), then they're clearly theories that are not well-established. Perhaps take outdated Freudian theories as an example.
Theories are theories whether they are right, or wrong, well-established, or falsified.
Posts: 66410
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 12:54 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 12:54 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
You don’t have any hypothesis at all. No hypothesis, no cogent criticism, no understanding, no familiarity with the subject.
Nothing.
Johnism, as already demonstrated, is just a great big gaping hole.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 6607
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 12:55 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 12:55 pm by GrandizerII.)
(August 7, 2019 at 12:53 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 12:48 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Not at all. You erroneously think theories don't need to be well-established. We don't agree!
Well right, I already said that's the part we don't agree on lol. To me, it doesn't make sense how you think a theory can be wrong and well-established at the same time. If theories remain theories despite evidence against them, and they're not demoted, they're clearly not well-established.
Something could be well-established, and based on solid evidence, and still be shown to be wrong at the end (through new evidence and such) ...
Now I have to teach you logic as well?
Posts: 66410
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 12:56 pm
You’ll have to tell him what his name is before he’s done.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 9914
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 12:59 pm
(August 7, 2019 at 12:48 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 12:44 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Evolution is a scientific fact. If you have a hypothesis that evolution via natural selection cannot account for the human eye, that is a proposition you are responsible for demonstrating. Coming to an atheist forum and whining, “Well, how do you explain this?” is not demonstrating the truth of your claim. It’s a textbook argument from personal incredulity. Or, colloquially, shit reasoning.
I don't have any hypothesis that evolution via natural selection cannot account for the human eye. Read the OP again ma'am.
Sure you don’t. *wink, nod*
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 1697
Threads: 15
Joined: August 2, 2019
Reputation:
6
RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 1:01 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 1:03 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)
(August 7, 2019 at 12:55 pm)Grandizer Wrote: (August 7, 2019 at 12:53 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Well right, I already said that's the part we don't agree on lol. To me, it doesn't make sense how you think a theory can be wrong and well-established at the same time. If theories remain theories despite evidence against them, and they're not demoted, they're clearly not well-established.
Something could be well-established, and based on solid evidence, and still be shown to be wrong at the end (through new evidence and such) ...
Now I have to teach you logic as well?
In what way can something be well-established, and based on solid evidence, but be wrong? No, its not rhetorical. I'm asking to make sure we're using these terms the same way. Aka, for clarification.
|
