"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

robindch

endacl

robindch wrote: »

That doesn't look even the least bit like me!

robindch

endacl wrote: »

That doesn't look even the least bit like me!

Oh, yes it does

endacl

robindch wrote: »

Oh, yes it does

You have waaaaaaaay too much time on your hands...

:-)

robindch

endacl wrote: »

You have waaaaaaaay too much time on your hands...

Just bored of Python's silly attitude to tabs + spaces at the moment...!

kiffer

robindch wrote: »

Just bored of Python's silly attitude to tabs + spaces at the moment...!

I hear that the snake in Eden was a python and that the fruit was really an IDE... after all IDLE hands do the devil's work...

mickrock

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

You do know you're calling EVERY scientist in the last 150+ years that has tested, and subsequently agreed with the Darwinian model wrong? Just clarifying that point. Cause it's all of their work versus your ignorance of the subject.

The great philosopher of science Karl Popper said:

"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories."

Later he partly recanted this because of the pressure from the Darwinist mob.

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

Blah Blah philosopher Blah science Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Darwinism Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah theories."

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Darwinist Blah.

Go away.

mickrock

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes there is, mountains of it [evidence]. Much of which has already been highlighted to you.

Dickie Dawkins has some interesting things to say about evidence:

"My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories."

What a nincompoop! (BTW Dickie, there is evidence for evolution but none for evolution by natural selection.)


Here's another of his quotes:

“The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. Even if the evidence did not favour it, it would still be the best theory available.”

How deluded can he get? He has reached the conclusion that Darwinism is correct from the outset and to hell with the evidence or lack of it.

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

Dickie Dawkins has some interesting things to say about evidence:

"My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories."

What a nincompoop! (BTW Dickie, there is evidence for evolution but none for evolution by natural selection.)


Here's another of his quotes:

“The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. Even if the evidence did not favour it, it would still be the best theory available.”

How deluded can he get? He has reached the conclusion that Darwinism is correct from the outset and to hell with the evidence or lack of it.

dead786

Sarky wrote: »

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.

you have lost your cause. Because you start banning people. JC is victim of your tyranny. Deadone is still fighting. With what mouth you are talking.. You cut people's tongues and then you think you have won.. You're a loser sarky, with all of your dogmas, with all of your creeds.. with all of your misery.... face the truth.. the moderators who are ruling in this foram are real world tyrant... they can't face truth.. they support you in propagating your religion but can't bear other people... I feel pity on all of converts here...:pac:

dead786

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

nagirrac

dead786 wrote: »

you have lost your cause. Because you start banning people. JC is victim of your tyranny. Deadone is still fighting. With what mouth you are talking.. You cut people's tongues and then you think you have won.. You're a loser sarky, with all of your dogmas, with all of your creeds.. with all of your misery.... face the truth.. the moderators who are ruling in this foram are real world tyrant... they can't face truth.. they support you in propagating your religion but can't bear other people... I feel pity on all of converts here...:pac:

Have you really been banned 785 times? Wow, what a hero..

dead786

nagirrac wrote: »

Have you really been banned 785 times? Wow, what a hero..

Banning people is pure tyranny. See my rebelliousness.:)
still enjoying the game of life. :cool:
no tension no worry.. these Ids, the life with in them.. I know how it makes people sick.. poor prisoners of this unknown world... can't free their souls:eek:

nagirrac

We are only starting to learn evolution in terms of mechanisms. Less than 10 years ago we thought the 20,000 or so genes in our DNA regulated everything related to being a human, now we know it is the 98% of what was called "junk" DNA that regulates our complexity. This is why we have struggled so much with understanding disease, because disease does not come from genes but from gene regulation. The same gene can do many differnet things in different cells.

We are still like 4 year old children who just discovered a clock on the beach and took the cover off.

dead786

nagirrac wrote: »

We are only starting to learn evolution in terms of mechanisms. Less than 10 years ago we thought the 20,000 or so genes in our DNA regulated everything related to being a human, now we know it is the 98% of what was called "junk" DNA that regulates our complexity. This is why we have struggled so much with understanding disease, because disease does not come from genes but from gene regulation. The same gene can do many differnet things in different cells.

We are still like 4 year old children who just discovered a clock on the beach and took the cover off.

I have no problem with peaceful evolution. I believe in peace... I support minority.. when majority forces the minority to believe what they believe... People believe what they want to believe.. Don't force other people... Here in this thread.. some people become personal and force people what they believe... which makes evolution a religion. I take side of minority.. It doesn't matter whether their beliefs are wrong or true... Here in this thread JC was minority...

BizzyC

The thing that always gets to me when theists go on about atheist belief in evolution is the way they think we're bound to it in the same way they bind themselves to religion.

If another theory came out tomorrow that provided a better explanation for observations in our environment while making fewer assumptions, I'd be all over it.

The Mad Hatter

dead786 wrote: »

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

"Imagine no religion"

endacl

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

"Imagine no religion"

Big ask. Maybe simpler to start with 'Imagine no trolling', or Imagine no Soapboxing'.

'Imagine imaginative thinking' anyone?

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

Dickie Dawkins has some interesting things to say about evidence: [...] What a nincompoop! (BTW Dickie, there is evidence for evolution but none for evolution by natural selection.) [...] How deluded can he get? He has reached the conclusion that Darwinism is correct from the outset and to hell with the evidence or lack of it.

FFS, mick -- can't you find it within yourself to contribute your point of view to the debate at an adult level?

If you continue at that juvenile level, you'll be banned for what I think will be your third and final time.

/sheesh

Sarky

dead786 wrote: »

you have lost your cause. Because you start banning people. JC is victim of your tyranny. Deadone is still fighting. With what mouth you are talking.. You cut people's tongues and then you think you have won.. You're a loser sarky, with all of your dogmas, with all of your creeds.. with all of your misery.... face the truth.. the moderators who are ruling in this foram are real world tyrant... they can't face truth.. they support you in propagating your religion but can't bear other people... I feel pity on all of converts here...:pac:

Oh hey kiddo. I'd forgotten you existed. I know you're reading this. You're too arrogant to stay away, and you would be just terrified at the thought of people forgetting you. Still stalking and harassing lady posters because they're smarter than you and they dare to tell you when you're wrong? Still unable to control your basest desires like an undisciplined child, and blaming everyone but yourself? Still pirating computer software and claiming it's ok because Allah never mentioned it in the Koran? Oh, and are you still claiming that the moon landings were faked?

And now, to forget you ever existed again. It's remarkably easy.

oldrnwisr

mickrock wrote: »

The great philosopher of science Karl Popper said:

"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories."

Later he partly recanted this because of the pressure from the Darwinist mob.

I know Robin has asked you to debate at an adult level but personally I'd be happy if you could debate honestly first.

Firstly, I shouldn't have to explain why making an appeal to authority is a bad argument. Not that Karl Popper could have been considered much of an authority on biology.

Secondly, you really should try not to quote mine people, particularly when borrowing the quote-mine from creationist sources.

What Popper continues to say after the above quote is:

"And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work."

Also, Popper didn't recant due to peer pressure. He admitted to getting it wrong, as most good scientists should be able to do. He showed in his book "Objective Knowledge" in 1972 that his understanding of natural selection was deeply flawed, particularly since he equates natural selection with "survival of the fittest."

Having realised his mistake, Popper corrected his earlier work, stating:

"The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. . . . I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological," and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems. I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation."

This was written by Popper in "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind" in 1978.

So, in summary, a man with no expertise in biology makes a mistake and misunderstands a biological theory. He realises his mistake and corrects it and this is supposed to be evidence of what exactly?

Oh, and another thing. Even if Popper, in 1976 when he said that, had been correct, to ignore the scientific advances in the intervening 40 years is at best foolish and worst downright dishonest.

Why are you wasting our time with this crap?

dlofnep

Mickrock just got owned. Again.

Sarky

I'm coining the phrase "To Mickroll" someone. It's mine. You can't have it.

endacl

dlofnep wrote: »

Mickrock just got owned. Again.

Thats kinda tragic. Only noobs should be owned...

PopePalpatine

Sarky wrote: »

I'm coining the phrase "To Mickroll" someone. It's mine. You can't have it.

What would you say instead of "never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna turn around and desert you"?

seamus

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What would you say instead of "never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna turn around and desert you"?

Just remove all the "you"s from that sentence.

mickrock

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Also, Popper didn't recant due to peer pressure.

Popper originally made his statement that Darwinism was untestable and a metaphysical research program in his 1974 book Unended Quest.

He made his "recantation" in 1980, yet in a revised edition of the book in 1982 he lets his original assertion stand, which is quite telling.

oldrnwisr

mickrock wrote: »

Popper originally made his statement that Darwinism was untestable and a metaphysical research program in his 1974 book Unended Quest.

He made his "recantation" in 1980, yet in a revised edition of the book in 1982 he lets his original assertion stand, which is quite telling.

Boy, your fact checking really sucks.

First of all, Unended Quest was published in 1976 not 1974.

Secondly, as I previously stated, Popper "recanted" or admitted he was wrong originally in an article called "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind which was published in Dialectica (32:339-355) or you can read it for yourself here. To reiterate:

"Nevertheless I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation."

I'm not sure if you're referring to Halstead's article about Popper in New Scientist in 1980 because I can't otherwise find a reference for a 1980 Popper work. Either way you're wrong.

Finally, you don't seem to have gotten the point of my post. Who cares what Popper had to say. He is one man. You're making an appeal to authority and a bad appeal to authority since a) Popper wasn't a biologist, he wasn't even a scientist so he's hardly an authority b) he demonstrates in "Objective Knowledge" that he misunderstood natural selection and c) he no longer holds (or held) the position you are basing your argument on.

Finally, as much respect as I have for Popper in other areas, I am reminded of Feynman's famous quote:

"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."

mickrock

robindch wrote: »

FFS, mick -- can't you find it within yourself to contribute your point of view to the debate at an adult level?

If you continue at that juvenile level, you'll be banned for what I think will be your third and final time.

/sheesh

I believe I've only been banned once so far.

Regarding juvenile behaviour, the way people who don't share your point of view are treated is also pretty juvenile e.g. Calling ID proponents IDiots, referring to William Dembski as Dumbski, calling creationists creatards etc. If your side are allowed to dish this sort of stuff out you should also be prepared to take it. Yet if I have a pop at Dawkins I'm liable to be banned!