Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false

[Mister Agenda]

Meanwhile, you have added nothing to the conversation except to say things like:
"Why should we care about your opinion"
"I always love how these fuckheads who claim to know so much about "Darwin" don't seem to know that he was a creationist."
"Fuck off Woody"

So yea, real insightful...

It probably wouldn't hurt to ignore Min.

[Esquilax]

I'm not claiming that at all. I am claiming that Stimbo can't just say there is no indication of God in the experiment until he rules out indications of God in all elements of the experiment. Stimbo is just taking it as axiomatic that conserved symmetries are not an indication of God when he has no idea why symmetries are conserved in the first place. He then concludes that none of the elements of the experiment indicate the presence of God. His conclusion is one of his axioms.

The argument I am making isn't an argument for God. It is an argument that Stimbo has no justification for the claim he made and the logic by which he arrives at his conclusion is fatally flawed.

Claims that are not demonstrated are irrational to accept. You are asking that we entertain a claim that has no demonstration, while accusing us of being irrational because we won't allow you to shift the burden of proof. Way to go.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Minimalist, I have already admitted that I presented my case poorly and/or stated things poorly. So if you won't accept what I've already done then I must assume that you are referring to me responding to new discussions that have come up. We'll I apologize but I just don't have the capability to learn everything there is to know about complex topics in 24 hours. I'm trying to read up on some of it when I have time, but like I've stated before, I'm busy. And when I do get 5 minutes to myself to do some research I'll pop back on here and 10 new topics arise.
Meanwhile, you have added nothing to the conversation except to say things like:
"Why should we care about your opinion"
"I always love how these fuckheads who claim to know so much about "Darwin" don't seem to know that he was a creationist."
"Fuck off Woody"

So yea, real insightful...

I wouldn't worry myself too much about him. He reaches for personal insult first, refuses to examine his own premises, and takes disagreement personally ... in other words, typical internet bullshit artist. *yawn*

[Chas]

Do we also have to prove no leprechaun involvement? Sprite involvement? Pixie involvement?

No, Heywood, that is not the way it works.

The way it works is you make a claim and then the burden of proof is on you to support that claim. For some reason you think atheists are immune to having a burden of proof....but they are not. Stimbo made a claim and the argument above shows he did not satisfy the burden of proof of substantiating his claim.

No, BlowJob, you are inserting an unnecessary factor where there is no need. That's not the way scientific inquiry works.

[Surgenator]

You are claiming that a symmetry would somehow break down if some magical being was keeping it in place. Where is your evidence for this?

I'm not claiming that at all. I am claiming that Stimbo can't just say there is no indication of God in the experiment until he rules out indications of God in all elements of the experiment. Stimbo is just taking it as axiomatic that conserved symmetries are not an indication of God when he has no idea why symmetries are conserved in the first place. He then concludes that none of the elements of the experiment indicate the presence of God. His conclusion is one of his axioms.

The argument I am making isn't an argument for God. It is an argument that Stimbo has no justification for the claim he made and the logic by which he arrives at his conclusion is fatally flawed.

I cannot speak for Stimbo, he can/will do that himself.

However, your argument postulates something that is unnecessary. The experiment would look the same with or without god. So adding god is pointless. Unless, you can show that god is necessary for the experiments to behave the way they do, your point is mute.

Also, your argument allows for any mythical being to exist to maintain the symmetries.

Finally, adding some mythical being doesn't explain anything. You're answering a mystery with a bigger mystery.

[Whateverist]

I'm not claiming that at all. I am claiming that Stimbo can't just say there is no indication of God in the experiment until he rules out indications of God in all elements of the experiment. Stimbo is just taking it as axiomatic that conserved symmetries are not an indication of God when he has no idea why symmetries are conserved in the first place. He then concludes that none of the elements of the experiment indicate the presence of God. His conclusion is one of his axioms.

The argument I am making isn't an argument for God. It is an argument that Stimbo has no justification for the claim he made and the logic by which he arrives at his conclusion is fatally flawed.

Absolutely right. Best to remember that any apparent conclusion can always be overthrown by something altogether unexpected and, really, unexplainable. Whereas by faith you can just admit arguments have nothing to do with it. Very shrewd.

[Chas]

Minimalist, I have already admitted that I presented my case poorly and/or stated things poorly. So if you won't accept what I've already done then I must assume that you are referring to me responding to new discussions that have come up. We'll I apologize but I just don't have the capability to learn everything there is to know about complex topics in 24 hours. I'm trying to read up on some of it when I have time, but like I've stated before, I'm busy. And when I do get 5 minutes to myself to do some research I'll pop back on here and 10 new topics arise.
Meanwhile, you have added nothing to the conversation except to say things like:
"Why should we care about your opinion"
"I always love how these fuckheads who claim to know so much about "Darwin" don't seem to know that he was a creationist."
"Fuck off Woody"

So yea, real insightful...

The point is that you know fuck all about evolution, yet claim it is wrong.

So don't get all pissy that you are not shown respect.

[Minimalist]

I sure hope you aren't laboring under the misconception that I'm hanging on every word you say? Nothing could be farther from the truth.

BTW, you had no idea that Darwin was a creationist, did you? See what you learn by coming here?

[Heywood]

Claims that are not demonstrated are irrational to accept. You are asking that we entertain a claim that has no demonstration, while accusing us of being irrational because we won't allow you to shift the burden of proof. Way to go.

Abiogenesis is not demonstrated....yet you appear to accept that claim. Intelligent design of lineages of life have been demonstrated....yet you appear to reject the claim that our lineage of life could be the product of intelligent design.

Your apparent positions are wholly inconsistent with what you just wrote.

The whole point of the thread on belief and knowledge in the philosophy section was to show that such statements like you wrote above.....are just silly.

---

I'm not claiming that at all. I am claiming that Stimbo can't just say there is no indication of God in the experiment until he rules out indications of God in all elements of the experiment. Stimbo is just taking it as axiomatic that conserved symmetries are not an indication of God when he has no idea why symmetries are conserved in the first place. He then concludes that none of the elements of the experiment indicate the presence of God. His conclusion is one of his axioms.

The argument I am making isn't an argument for God. It is an argument that Stimbo has no justification for the claim he made and the logic by which he arrives at his conclusion is fatally flawed.

I cannot speak for Stimbo, he can/will do that himself.

However, your argument postulates something that is unnecessary. The experiment would look the same with or without god. So adding god is pointless. Unless, you can show that god is necessary for the experiments to behave the way they do, your point is mute.

Also, your argument allows for any mythical being to exist to maintain the symmetries.

Finally, adding some mythical being doesn't explain anything. You're answering a mystery with a bigger mystery.

The results of the experiments require conserved laws of nature. Laws of nature are about something other than themselves. The law of conservation of momentum conserves momentum....it does not conserve itself. What is required is something which conserves laws of nature and also conserves itself. Conserving laws of nature and also conserving itself is a quality of God. Does that prove God's existence? It does not. I does prove that something with some of God's attributes must exist in order for the experiments to behave the way they do.

Considering the possibility of God here is not pointless because it adds a necessary requirement for the experiments to behave the way they do.

[Chas]

Claims that are not demonstrated are irrational to accept. You are asking that we entertain a claim that has no demonstration, while accusing us of being irrational because we won't allow you to shift the burden of proof. Way to go.

Abiogenesis is not demonstrated....yet you appear to accept that claim. Intelligent design of lineages of life have been demonstrated....yet you appear to reject the claim that our lineage of life could be the product of intelligent design.

Your apparent positions are wholly inconsistent.

No, what is rejected is your idea of a prior intelligence because you have no evidence for it.