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

[Cyberman]

I don't have to deny any physical laws nor eliminate all possible god options merely to point out that the things under experimental observation happened apparently all by themselves. You want to squeeze a god in there, be my guest.

Trying to turn an argument against your claim into an argument about God's existence(or lack thereof) is strawmanning.

Is it?

My 'claim' that you're so proud of parading around was that no gods were necessary for the M/U results. How is that not addressing arguments for a god's existence or lack thereof? Except inasmuch as you keep capitalising the word where I never have, thus narrowing the scope to one specific deity instead of all such.

[Heywood]

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.

No Chas, I don't need to prove a prior intelligence. What is true is this:

The probability of our lineage of life being the product of intelligent design cannot exceed the probability of a pre-existing intellect being around to produce it.

In order to reject the claim Chas, you have to have computed the probability of a pre-existing intellect being around and determined it to be at or very near 0.

How have you done this probability calculation? If you haven't how can you credibly reject the claim?

---

Trying to turn an argument against your claim into an argument about God's existence(or lack thereof) is strawmanning.

Is it?

My 'claim' that you're so proud of parading around was that no gods were necessary for the M/U results. How is that not addressing arguments for a god's existence or lack thereof? Except inasmuch as you keep capitalising the word where I never have, thus narrowing the scope to one specific deity instead of all such.

You claimed that the results of the experiment show that God is not necessary. I made an argument that there must exist something with attributes commonly ascribed to God for the experiment to behave they way they do. Really the only credible counter argument to save your position would be to argue that something which conserves itself and the laws of nature isn't necessary for the experiments to behave the way they do. You chose not to do that and instead focus on arguing that God does not exist.

Your initial claim was unsubstantiated and your defense of it was impotent.

[Chas]

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.

The conservation laws, like all the other natural laws, are man-made descriptions of the behavior of the universe. Your continued attempts to give them some other importance has gotten really old.

Reality does not require your additional requirements.

---

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

No Chas, I don't need to prove a prior intelligence. What is true is this:

The probability of our lineage of life being the product of intelligent design cannot exceed the probability of a pre-existing intellect being around to produce it.

In order to reject the claim Chas, you have to have computed the probability of a pre-existing intellect being around and determined it to be at or very near 0.

How have you done this probability calculation? If you haven't how can you credibly reject the claim?

It has nothing to do with probability - where did you get that?

You have to explain the prior intelligence, you haven't, I reject it.

[Surgenator]

The results of the experiments require conserved laws of nature.

No. The conserved laws are based on the results of experiments. The laws are descriptive not presciptive.

Laws of nature are about something other than themselves. The law of conservation of momentum conserves momentum....it does not conserve itself.

We agree. I fail to see how this is important.

What is required is something which conserves laws of nature and also conserves itself.

How about nothing. Your demand that something needs to be there is an assertion. You haven't shown that we need a something.

Conserving laws of nature and also conserving itself is a quality of God.

First, you haven't shown that god has that quality. Two, you have explained nothing. You replaced one mystery with a bigger mystery.

Does that prove God's existence? It does not.

I agree.

I does prove that something with some of God's attributes must exist in order for the experiments to behave the way they do.

No it doesn't.

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

Haven't shown that. Your argument is based on something must exist to conserve the conservation laws. You haven't shown this to be the case, but just accerted it.

[Cyberman]

You claimed that the results of the experiment show that God is not necessary.

Actually what I said was the experiment indicated that no gods were required. I said nothing about necessity, nor have I shifted focus to the "God" character specifically. You're the one strawmanning my position.

I made an argument that there must exist something with attributes commonly ascribed to God for the experiment to behave they way they do.

Precisely. You posited an entity outside the observed system that is not inferred by that system nor required for its conclusion. The burden of proof is on your positive existential claim.

Really the only credible counter argument to save your position would be to argue that something which conserves itself and the laws of nature isn't necessary for the experiments to behave the way they do. You chose not to do that and instead focus on arguing that God does not exist.

Your initial claim was unsubstantiated and your defense of it was impotent.

I only eat herring on a Friday.

[Thumpalumpacus]

How have you done this probability calculation? If you haven't how can you credibly reject the claim?

Because this entity exhibits no evidence.

Every creative or destructive force that we've ever seen radiates energy in one form or another. Typically, the radiation emitted is directly proportional to the amount of creation or destruction taking place.

You posit a force or being that you allege has created the entirety of reality. Such a being, by all experience, ought to be radiating copious amounts of energy far exceeding the radiation of stars or even supernovæ; after all, this potentiality can create entire universes. Yet we see absolutely no sign of any such creative agency.

Where is this hiding ... and why?

[Heywood]

Because this entity exhibits no evidence.

Every creative or destructive force that we've ever seen radiates energy in one form or another. Typically, the radiation emitted is directly proportional to the amount of creation or destruction taking place.

You posit a force or being that you allege has created the entirety of reality. Such a being, by all experience, ought to be radiating copious amounts of energy far exceeding the radiation of stars or even supernovæ; after all, this potentiality can create entire universes. Yet we see absolutely no sign of any such creative agency.

Where is this hiding ... and why?

Interesting thought. We do have the mysterious dark energy which exceeds the radiation of all the stars and supernovae combined. Are you suggesting that if God exists and creates and maintains the universe, then we should expect the existence of something like dark energy?

[Rob216]

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.

Haha what? So stating an opinion or making a claim is worthy of not being given respect on a personal level? So if you, me, and minimalist were sitting at your kitchen table having a debate and AFTER I admitted that my original claimed was flawed and that I needed to do more research you would defend minimalist for calling me a fuckhead? That's an acceptable way of addressing someone?

[Exian]

Hey Rob, not to derail things here, but I notice the 216. Are you from the Cleveland area? That's the Cleveland area code; in case you're not from Cleveland and are wondering why I'd ask.

[Jackalope]

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.

Haha what? So stating an opinion or making a claim is worthy of not being given respect on a personal level? So if you, me, and minimalist were sitting at your kitchen table having a debate and AFTER I admitted that my original claimed was flawed and that I needed to do more research you would defend minimalist for calling me a fuckhead? That's an acceptable way of addressing someone?

Actually, for many if not most of the active posters, admitting the flaws in your argument is going to earn you respect.

How far that goes is going to depend on whether you're open to correcting the remainder of your errors.