"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

The Mad Hatter

/\/ollog wrote: »

Never sed it woz new, babe.
I simply said it's still a theory.
Genes mutate all the time, that doesn't mean it's evolving.
Cancer isn't evolution, it's a mutation.

Not sure how many more ways I can say this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc

You haven't even attempted to address my point. I'll say it again: you are using the wrong definition of the word theory.

By the way, did you even watch the video you posted? The last line, and the point of the video, is "evolution is both a theory and a fact."

Nollog

I'm not.

As I said, the proof isn't proof until it proves the entirety of the theory in a considerable number of species.
Simple mutations aren't enough, it has to prove every part of the theory.

The Mad Hatter

/\/ollog wrote: »

I'm not.

As I said, the proof isn't proof until it proves the entirety of the theory in a considerable number of species.
Simple mutations aren't enough, it has to prove every part of the theory.

How would you suggest someone prove music theory?

Nollog

'Don't know what a music theory is.

The Mad Hatter

Music theory is the study of how music works.

sponsoredwalk

/\/ollog wrote: »

Personally, I think it's fact. It shouldn't be taken for granted just because a lot of people think it is that it shouldn't be proven more so that it's beyond any doubt that it's what happens.

Yeah you're right but I don't think anybody does take it for granted that
evolution is a fact just because people have said so, people have been
shown evidence. If you had been following this thread you'd see that
we've posted mountains of evidence for JC, I mean serious evidence -
fruit fly studies from the 1960's, links to textbook, links to plenty of
videos going through the evidence - and lots more I just can't remember.

So if you're coming late to this thread it may appear that we all just
dogmatically propagate the party line or whatever but the fact is that
we've spent almost 8 months giving JC evidence, since September.

/\/ollog wrote: »

Never sed it woz new, babe.
I simply said it's still a theory.
Genes mutate all the time, that doesn't mean it's evolving.
Cancer isn't evolution, it's a mutation.

When you say "it's still a theory" I mean what does that even mean?
Theories of Special & General Relativity (theory of gravity) - "it's still a
theory", Germ theory of disease - "it's still a theory", Quantum
Electrodynamics - "it's still a theory", Quantum Chromodynamics - "it's
still a theory", economics, psychology, sociology, philosophy - "it's still a theory"....
I could go on, if you keep stating this ridiculous sentence we can only
assume lack of education or infection by propaganda because it's just a
ridiculous thing to say.

/\/ollog wrote: »

Evolution goes beyond mutations, evolution theorises that mutations that are helpful in some way or are attractive, stick around.
To prove that takes time, more than 150 years.

Did you see the universe evolve? That took quite a while, I mean it took
a few billion years for the previous star to explode & for it's remnants
to form our current solar system. Who observed that? Oh, sure it's still
just a theory... Did my ancestors exist? How do I know? It could all be
some big theory :P

I don't know how to answer a question like this, I mean you can't observe
the universe evolving but there is a hell of a lot of evidence to suggest
that it evolved the way it is theorized to have happened, but you can't
prove that it did because you can't prove anything. Similarly you can't
watch organisms evolve from simple to complex because of the massive
time scale involved - but just as with the universe evidence is inferred
from other sources - which, I think it is fair to say, is the way science
works a lot of the time....

Take gravity, you might think gravity has been proven or something, but
the fact is that in space there are still big anomolies that do not have a
clear explanation in general relativity theory, and needless to say you
can't meld GR & QM together. How can a theory with such big problems
be proven? Take something else, I'm sure we can ruin it for you

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

OK ... let's put it in plain english ... how could the complex functional specific genetic information found in copious quantities in living cells arise spontaneously ... when non-intelligently directed processes are incapable of producing the specific sequence for just one simple protein biomolecule?

It doesn't exist, and nothing 'spontaneously' comes into being, I repeat -
it's called chemistry.

Btw, since you're currently quote mining Lewontin you might enjoy watching
this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBZJWyGh1EI

Nollog

sponsoredwalk, yeah. We can't prove anything that can't be observed in a decade. Just recently scientists got closer to proving dark energy is pulling the universe apart, through observations in measurements.
Some flies have proven evolution because of their short life spans, but larger animals live longer, and one species isn't enough to prove anything.
It just needs time is all.
Origin of Species will never be proven until we get time travel.
Fossils only prove something existed, and yeah they could be missing links, or mutated apes/humans. No way to know for sure without observing them.
The usual theory definition applies in this sense, which is where the scientific definition meets it.
A scientific theory is formed by a classic theory, then looking to observe parts of the classic theory in an attempt to prove it.
"Still a theory" applies in that way to both scientific definition, and regular definition.
Can be said for everything, but evidence to support e=mc2 is found in everyday car travel (you burn more fuel going faster than you do slower), gravity (when you jump, you fall) etc. tear off the regular definition from those.
Evolution takes centuries to see(in non-insect animals), so evidence will build up slower.

madhatter, I don't know, play music into a majiggy what shows sound waves?
I think you're missing my point, or you're trying to prove my point for me, in an attempt to say "WELL IF WE CAN'T PROVE MUSIC THEORY THEN WE'RE NOT GOING TO PROVE EVOLUTION SO WE MAY AS WELL ACCEPT EVOLUTION AS FACT", which is silly.

MagicMarker

/\/ollog wrote: »

madhatter, I don't know, play music into a majiggy what shows sound waves?
I think you're missing my point, or you're trying to prove my point for me, in an attempt to say "WELL IF WE CAN'T PROVE MUSIC THEORY THEN WE'RE NOT GOING TO PROVE EVOLUTION SO WE MAY AS WELL ACCEPT EVOLUTION AS FACT", which is silly.

I think you're missing his point.

sponsoredwalk

You really are missing the point, you can't prove anything outside of math.
You claiming we can't prove the origin of the species until we get time travel
is incorrect because you can't prove anything... You can't prove dark energy
is pulling the universe apart, you can show evidence which suggests that
the theory describing dark energy is correct or formulate a better theory
about dark energy. I mentioned the theory of gravity for a reason, you'd
probably say we've proved it, but your proof doesn't explain the anomolies
experienced in space or other anomolies. Furthermore a theory of gravity
should be able to account for dark energy & it's really unknown whether the
cosmological constant does that or not, so this talk of proof is really just
nonsense.

Nobody is saying that because music theory can't be proven you should
accept evolution either, jeesh :pac:

Nollog

If you take out one rival truth from three, you're left with two rival truths.
You can prove anything outside of math...
Through observation!

Mark Hamill

/\/ollog wrote: »

madhatter, I don't know, play music into a majiggy what shows sound waves?
I think you're missing my point, or you're trying to prove my point for me, in an attempt to say "WELL IF WE CAN'T PROVE MUSIC THEORY THEN WE'RE NOT GOING TO PROVE EVOLUTION SO WE MAY AS WELL ACCEPT EVOLUTION AS FACT", which is silly.

Whats silly is saying that because we dont directly observe something, thats its not possible to reasonably prove it true. By your logic, seeing as I've never been to, or met someone from, Alaska, I can claim it doesn't exist. Very very little of what we can show is actually directly observed, we dont directly observe atoms or viruses or bacteria, we almost always work by looking at effects and matching them up to known causes.

Mark Hamill

/\/ollog wrote: »

If you take out one rival truth from three, you're left with two rival truths.
You can prove anything outside of math...
Through observation!

Observation is flawed, hence there are thousands of religions. Peoples observations regularly contradict.

Turtwig

/\/ollog wrote: »

If you take out one rival truth from three, you're left with two rival truths.
You can prove anything outside of math...
Through observation!

It is impossible to know with absolute certainty that your observation is reliable let alone correct. Wouldn't you agree?

sponsoredwalk

/\/ollog wrote: »

If you take out one rival truth from three, you're left with two rival truths.
You can prove anything outside of math...
Through observation!

Ah yes, observation - that which proves to us the sun rotates
around the earth :rolleyes:

Turtwig

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Ah yes, observation - that which proves to us the sun rotates
around the earth :rolleyes:

Well it does wobble a bit.:pac:

GO_Bear

While trying to do some work today, listening to music, I was just happened across a band that I used to love the Instrumental work but never really payed heed to the lyrics.

A certain few lines caught my attention, and they really do portray my biggest pet peeve with religions ( all forms of religion, in particular ones that promote creationist ****e )

The band is a heavy metal band called Lamb of God and the song is Ruin, interesting name considering they are quite anti religious.

The song is speaking about what happens when religion takes hold.

Lamb of God wrote:

This is the resolution
The end of all progress
The death of evolution
It bleeds all life away.

Yes my number one pet peeve, God did it, we have blind faith he created this world so why bother trying to find out about it. This sickens me.


Anyways I am sure that J C will interpret this as some kind of factual proof from creation "science" and I am not bothered as I have had quite enough of his lies and misinformation.

Anyways, was just bored

sponsoredwalk

As is encapsulated in the theory of wobbliness

Nollog

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Whats silly is saying that because we dont directly observe something, thats its not possible to reasonably prove it true.

Reasonably prove?
You mean beyond a reasonable doubt?
That's possible. I shortened it to "beyond doubt" in the post.

Malty_T wrote: »

It is impossible to know with absolute certainty that your observation is reliable let alone correct. Wouldn't you agree?

Ya. Read above.
You're confusing my words again maybe.
I'm not saying gravity is proven 100% because I bounced a ball it hit the ground and is now in my hand again, or some similar example with evolution, but that it's 80% or so proven based on that observation.
Number's are just random here, but for argument sake 20% is an unreasonable doubt, proving, with doubt, but not reasonable doubt, that grabity is true.
Again, the numbers here are random.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Ah yes, observation - that which proves to us the sun rotates
around the earth :rolleyes:

We is in space and sees it.

MagicMarker

/\/ollog wrote: »

We is in space and sees it.

lol, seriously?

GO_Bear

/\/ollog wrote: »

I bounced a ball it hit the ground and is now in my hand again

that grabity is true.

Freudian slip ? :pac::pac:

Nollog

more like a joke from an old Garfield and friends episode.

sponsoredwalk

/\/ollog wrote: »

We is in space and sees it.

How do you know those pictures aren't faked? How do you know all
those videos aren't faked? Have you ever been up in space? Why should
I believe you? If I am put up in space who is to say I'm not being fed
drugs by Ewan Cameron's protoge's in the C.I.A.? I don't think you
realise how poor a verification tool sight or intuition is. Do you know
anything about quantum mechanics? Do you know how well sight &
intuition hold up as methods of proof in these subjects? I mention this
because our sight also lead us astray for hundreds of years until it was
shown by alternative methods that the earth was not at the center of
the universe.

/\/ollog wrote: »

I'm not saying gravity is proven 100% because I bounced a ball it hit the ground and is now in my hand again, or some similar example with evolution, but that it's 80% or so proven based on that observation.
Number's are just random here, but for argument sake 20% is an unreasonable doubt, proving, with doubt, but not reasonable doubt, that grabity is true.
Again, the numbers here are random.

Everybody thought gravity was proven when Newton's Principia came out,
still plenty of anomalies were discovered and a few of them
stuck out, then Einstein's General Relativity changed the view of gravity
by explaining those anomalies in Newton's theory & vastly extending the
scpoe of gravitational theory, now it describes things like black holes &
the expansion of the universe. Still, this is not proof & their are still
many anomalies in relativity theory, things that aren't described,
predicted or accounted for by GR - what kind of proof is that?

Furthermore, the concept of proof, as you are using it, is really really
vague. In mathematics a proof relies on a set of assumptions called
axioms by which something is proven to be true. Could you tell us what
axioms the theory of gravity rests on & tell us how this is proven
as a theory when the axioms we are using in general relativity do not
account for gravitational anomalies that are at the forefront of research?

As for bouncing your ball, I mean how does bouncing your ball prove to
us that we are living in a space-time continuum where mass is curving
spacetime?

Nollog

Now you're resorting to conspiracy theories.
Which are unreasonable.
Which doesn't go against what I said.

Mark Hamill

/\/ollog wrote: »

Reasonably prove?
You mean beyond a reasonable doubt?
That's possible. I shortened it to "beyond doubt" in the post.

So you agree with my point then (with "beyond a reasonable doubt" added)? That observation is flawed and that most things we "know" aren't known because of direct observation?

/\/ollog wrote: »

Ya. Read above.
You're confusing my words again maybe.
I'm not saying gravity is proven 100% because I bounced a ball it hit the ground and is now in my hand again, or some similar example with evolution, but that it's 80% or so proven based on that observation.
Number's are just random here, but for argument sake 20% is an unreasonable doubt, proving, with doubt, but not reasonable doubt, that grabity is true.
Again, the numbers here are random.

But by observing a ball bouncing you haven't proven anything, you have just observed it bouncing that one time. You need to develop a hypothesis about why it bounced, devise some test to investigate your hypothesis and then adapt you hypothesis (if needed) to any new data. Its possible to make something bounce in a zero-g environment, so just by observing a bounce under gravity doesn't really explain or prove gravity at all, you need to go beyond the initial observation, quite a bit, to prove the actual theory behind gravity (such as the universal gravitational constant and Einsteins field equations). By restricting to the immediately observable you are massively restricting the potential of any scientific discovery.

Nollog

Sure is.

sponsoredwalk

/\/ollog wrote: »

Now you're resorting to conspiracy theories.
Which are unreasonable.
Which doesn't go against what I said.

Where is the conspiracy theory? Everything I wrote, if you bothered to
read it properly, contradicts nearly every single thing you've claimed.

But you prefer the slander-&-burn technique of rhetoric with a healthy
side dose of half-reading the arguments against you, topped off with a
healthy ignorance of the content of that half you read...

I've mentioned gravity, I think, three times now to get you to acknowledge
the fact that you are completely wrong but you just wont listen, wont
address anything I'm saying & instead choose to focus on some trivial
side point I made (which, btw, was again just pointing out the fallacy in
your own argument).

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote:

Btw, since you're currently quote mining Lewontin you might enjoy watching
this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBZJWyGh1EI

A facinating interview ... that reminds me just how open-minded Evolutionism was ... when I was an Evolutionist!!!

Prof Lewontin is an amazing person who tells it like it is ... and, in many respects how it should be!!!

... here are some more interesting quotes from this great mind and Evolutionary Geneticist:-

He had this to say about his PhD Professor and how there was mutual respect between Theists and Materialists ... and a general 'live and let live' attitude in the academic world of his youth:-
"Theodosius Dobzhansky, the leading empirical evolutionary geneticist of the twentieth century, who spent most of his life staring down a microscope at chromosomes, vacillated between deism, gnosticism, and membership in the Russian Orthodox Church. He could not understand how anyone on his or her deathbed could remain an unrepentant materialist. I, his student and scientific epigone, ingested my unwavering atheism and a priori materialism along with the spinach at the parental dinner table. " "The Wars Over Evolution" New York Review of Books October 20, 2005

On the arrogance of human nature within science and its cultural basis he had this to say:-
Not only the methods and institutions of science are said to be above ordinary human relations but, of course, the product of science is claimed to be a kind of universal truth. The secrets of nature are unlocked. Once the truth about nature is revealed, one must accept the facts of life. When science speaks, let no dog bark. Finally, science speaks in mysterious words. No one except an expert can understand what scientists say and do, and we require the mediation of special people – science journalists, for example, or professors who speak on the radio – to explain the mysteries of nature because otherwise there is nothing but indecipherable formulas. Nor can one scientists always understand the formulas of another. Once, when Sir Solly Zuckerman, the famous English zoologist, was asked what he did when he read a scientific paper and came across mathematical formulas, he said, “I hum them.”

Despite its claims to be above society, science, like the Church before it, is a supremely social institution, reflecting and reinforcing the dominant values and views of society at each historical epoch. Sometimes the source in social experience of a scientific theory and the way in which that scientific theory is a direct translation of social experience are completely evident, even at a detailed level. The most famous case is Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. Biology as Ideology (1992) p.8-9

Here is an interesting (and very true) observation on the parallells between religion and science:-

"For an institution to explain the world so as to make the world legitimate, it must possess several features. First, the institution as a whole must appear to derive from sources outside of ordinary human social struggle. It must not seem to be the creation of political, economic, or social forces, but to descend into society form a supra-human source. Second, the ideas, pronouncements, rules, and results of the institution’s activity must have a validity and a transcendent truth that goes beyond any possibility of human compromise or human error. Its explanations and pronouncements must seem to be true in an absolute sense and to derive somehow from an absolute source. They must be true for all time and all place. And finally, the institution must have a certain mystical and veiled quality so that its innermost operation is not completely transparent to everyone. It must have an esoteric language, which needs to be explained to the ordinary person by those who are especially knowledgeable and who can intervene between everyday life and mysterious sources of understanding and knowledge.

The Christian Church or indeed any revealed religion fits these requirements perfectly, and so religion has been an ideal institution for legitimating society. If only people with special grace, whether they be priests, pastors, or ordinary citizens, are in direct contact with the divine inspiration through revelations, then we must depend upon them completely for an understanding of what has been divinely decreed.

But this description also fits science and has made it possible for science to replace religion as the chief legitimating force in modern society. Science claims a method that is objective and nonpolitical, true for all time. Scientists truly believe that except for the unwanted intrusions of ignorant politicians, science is above the social fray. Biology as Ideology (1992) p.7-8


A truly amazing and insightful man ... and well worth listening to.

A great video ... and I thank you for putting it up here.

... Like I have said it brought me back to when I was an idealistic young Evolutionary Scientist ... before I found out that Evolution might not be all it was supposed to be!!!

fatmammycat

You were never a scientist JC, ever.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

"Scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule."- Colin Patterson.

And boy did poor Colin's skepticism about aspects of evolution get him into 'hot water' ... and (invalidly) exposed him to ridicule!!!!

Another amazing and great mind within Evolutionism ... but alas, he is no longer with us (in this physical dimension).

Love and peace to you all.