Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

.

 

What you posted above is a common dogma among zealous worshipers of Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution.

Somehow they believe that saying those magic words releives them of responsibility to make good of their claim.

Of course anyone who didn't believe Munchausen could pull himself by his own hair must have been an idiot who never understood laws of physics.

 

And now I suppose those who think they are clever enough to call challengers of their tall tale "smartasses" (of course what else can you do but calling someone names when you have no real knowledge nor plausible argument to support your own claim), now they will claim that calling bluff of Munchausen is somehow an equivalent of disputing that Earth itself exists. All the while we are conveniently put on their "ignore list", lest we point once again to obvious fallacy of their claims while making it necessary for them to address it.
Very clever way of defending otherwise baseless assertion.

 

Glad it was interesting for you! Struck a chord with me too. Seeing the diverse theories, and how they may come together, leaves us with a picture bigger than any one argument could depict.

 

Firstly, thanks for the link. I had a read over it and found it of a lot of interest. I would agree that there seems to be a very juvenile scientific attitude here, following the pattern of "Evolution is completely valid, therefore I have no need to back myself up". I've even encouraged people to try and prove me wrong, but so far nothing. I truly believe that anyone who believes so rock-solidly in something such as evolution, they should know the basis behind their views and be able to back themselves up
For the record, I agree with what you say concerning "intelligence" in the design of everything that walks the earth. I simply do not believe in any case that anything here today is a random result. Even if we did evolve (thinking from the discussion at hand and not my own opinion) I'd have to believe there was a level of intelligence behind it.

Says who there won't be? I've written two posts about both vestigial organs and fossils and neither prove evolution, although I haven't seen anyone bothered enough to argue me.

 

Intelligent Design or Creationism is not much different from Darwinism, in that all make a claim to know something about causes and mechanisms while unable to present any relevant evidence and plausible argument to prove the claim.

Of course I would agree that Darwinism as a theory is even greater in it's improbability and requires bigger leap of Faith than Intelligent Design, but just because it is so doesn't mean Intelligent Design is a scientifically valid theory.

The biggest problem with people is that they have to declare that they know something even if they lack the knowledge required to make such declaration.

If you see UFO in the skies, with nothing to add to your observation except other people confirming they have seen it too, then all you know is that it is some sort of a phenomena.
You don't know if it's terrestial and meteorological in it's origin or extraterrestial, has anything to do with intelligent work or else.

If you apply the logic of Darwinists to UFO observation, you might as well assert with equal confidence that UFO is nothing but a rocket-plane from outer space (since you don't know of anything else that could possibly be observed flying in space, change trajectory and suspend in air and no earthly entity acknowleges to cause it) and that since it's a rocket-plane it must also be fueled by kerosene as it is the only kind of fuel you know of that is used in rockets and airplanes.
And if anyone doubts your assertion they are uneducated morons...


Darwinists do observe phenomena (conscious human beings walking on the Earth), do have fossils, do perform lab tests. Nobody disputes that (just as nobody disputes that Earth exists and that it is not flat).

What Darwinists lack is any supporting their theory evidence and plausible argument to demonstrate clearly as to how the inference is made and what the logic behind their conjecture is (to use the word of OWB).

No reasonable person will ask them to travel 600 million years back in time and videotape evolution and deliver it back (this is what they claim they are being asked for) as the only acceptable proof of scientific validity of the theory.

But we do ask them for more than "this happened that way because we don't know and can't imagine of any other way it could have happened and you are an idiot if doubting us" kind of argument.

The absence of the required plausible argument simply doesn't convince the sceptical mind that modern theory of evolution is indeed a scientifically valid theory.

 

I do not pretend to know everything there is to know about how we came to be. I couldn't try and convince people I do because it's stupid to lie about something no-one really knows. The best we can do is research as best we can and make an educated decision from that. I do not have a problem with people believing anything the like in terms of human existence as long as they actually have the ability to back themselves and their ideas up, otherwise it gives the impression they only believe this, that or the other because they are told to believe it and not that they have actually questioned it at all.

 

Have you studied horizontal gene transfer at all? It may be able to explain the sudden appearance of species in the fossil record. They compare it to cobwebs on the tree of life and it may prove to be more influential than gene mutation.

I agree with you on the random assumption made in neo-darwinism. I'm not sure how they would prove that. It seems to have come from scientist's opinion more than anything else.

 

That is because plausible argument simply isn't a valid scientific metric.

 

Curious, what would happen if say within the next 20 or 30 years, evidence began to amount that would completely revolutionize evolutionary science, just as Newtonian physics was complimented by a new perception of reality? If we found some intelligence within evolution, some strange universal impulse to evolve towards greater consciousness, intelligence, complexity? To me, I think this is a synthesis, potentially. The Intelligent Design argument, at heart, is saying this is not just a random occurrence. There is order within the chaos. The evolutionary worldview is often lost in the details, but the bigger picture is that there is indeed an evolutionary cosmology, with a definitive direction we can witness in ourselves. It seems that, as has been mentioned, a synthesis is in order.

The downside of contemporary theory is that they miss the bigger picture. Intelligent Design has an intuition about this, but is fragmented because it offers no working alternative. An "intelligent" evolution, a work-in-progress in which God, or the Divine, or the Omega point which extends beyond our knowledge could be at work here, an unfolding of the cosmos towards God? Who knows, but maybe.

In that article, I liked complexity theory... It seems that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but to me there is just too much evidence in weight of evolution, not being blindly tumbling, but with direction. An on-going genesis towards greater unity.

At any rate, this has been a great discussion.

 

You're to much!

 

That's because your a quack, have you ever heard the saying don't wrestle with a chimney sweep?

 

Unlike you I am not playing word games here.

Let me break it down so your futile attempt to confuse the reader can once again fail.

First of all the topic is "Evolution is not a valid scientific theory".
It is not "Argument is or isn't a valid scientific metric."

Second, I would actually note in the context that "Evolution is not a valid scientific theory" is not a proper name for the thread as it implies that one has obligation to prove non-existence.
Opposite is true.
One who makes Positive Assertion is obliged to prove it.
One who doubts such assertion isn't similarly situated to be obliged to prove anything.

Therefore I would say the proper name for this thread should be "Evolution IS a Scientifically Valid Theory".

Given that the OP himself is a devout believer that Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution is Scientifically Valid, naming this thread "Evolution IS a Scientifically Valid Theory" would be so much more plausible.

But what plausibility can we expect from a man who resorts to name calling and ignoring his opponent at the first opportunity just to free himself of obligation to prove his baseless ,arbitrary assertions and tall tales ?

Munchausen would be proud of him !

It is tehrefore understandable that his naming this thread "Evloution is not a valid scientific theory" was a ploy devised in hopes of misguiding the reader into thinking that those who doubt his baseless and arbitrary Positive Assertion are also the ones obliged to prove non-existence and absurdity of his claim.

While the motivation of OP is clear, it doesn't quite achieve the purpose he may have had in his head.

And I hereby call his bluff and once again challenege him to prove his claim by presenting a relevant to the theory he defends evidence and plausible argument to back up his assertion that it is Scientifically Valid theory.

Either that, or he has no claim to begin with and someone else should take his place instead, if there is any.

 

Yeah, I've always studied evloution by looking at individual species and not as a system that is coevolving.

This quote jumped out at me "when a particular kind of dynamic system moves toward chaos and disequilibrium, at some point it spontaneously shifts into a more complex and integrated structure. Through this process of “self-organization” or “emergence,” something arises that is more than the sum of its parts and functions with greater autonomy."

 

You bring up some very interesting points. I believe micro-evolution and adaptation has an intelligent design behind it. You are right, there is some direction, some synthesis to the world and those inside it. It makes me wonder in a away what the future lies for us in this respect, but we can never know the future.
That poses a good question though. If science discovered an element of intelligent design in cell adaptation, would more people start to believe in a creator God? Would the belief in this Creator God be seen with less contempt? And I am also asking myself the same, but opposite question, if the ideology of macro-evolution was proven without reasonable doubt, how would those believing in Creation story religions, including Islam, Christianity and so on, react? Would they stop believing in their religions creation story for it?
And what if the opposite happened? What if a creator God was proven scientifically to exist, and the 7day creation story was proven without reasonable doubt to be true? How would a Darwinist take it?

I'm a Quack? Did you even read my posts?

 

No evolution?

H1N1
?

 

I assume by H1N1 you mean the flu strand. You have not exactly elaborated so at guesswork I assume you mean because the strand of the virus has adapted and mutated. Is this what you mean? If so, this is not the type of evolution that is in the firing line. This is simple adaptation and no-one here has doubted it.

 

This poster is a great example of opposing to Darwinists views extreme.
She already has preconceived idea of alternative to Darwinistic mechanism cause responsible for evolution of life, even though she has no scientific evidence or plausible argument to support it, only her religious feeling.

She could be setting up a straw man argument and consciously playing into the hands of Darwinists by making latter appear more reasonable and rational than they actually are, or she could be sinsere in stating her beliefs.
In her defence she at least clarified that she doesn't claim to know all there is about evolution of scpecies.
So I will leave it at that.


And getting back to the main subject, which is the obligation of those who make Positive Assertion to also Prove it:

When will we see anyone who claims that Darwins Religious Theory of Evolution has anything to do with Science also present the relevant evidence and plausible argument to prove their claim?

 

Actually, I am trying to be sincere. I don't want people to think that I'm using a straw man argument because that's not my style.
I also still don't feel like I need to bring my own beliefs into this discussion. I don't think it will add anything to this discussion, apart from diverting the conversation away from evolution to what I believe in, and of course that will be a good excuse for people to not have to account for the evidence they have promised. So even if I did have arguments to support myself I am not going to enter it. This is a thread about evolution, not about me and my personal belief system.

The more it is required to ask, the more I doubt it will happen.

 

Oh, little child , of course I know you are being very sinsere.

It's me, an old sceptical man here, who has seen way too many tall tale tellers like Okiefreak, Munchausen and others, it's me who is constantly questioning the hidden motivations of dogma worshipers who I know are capable of devising any ploy and ruse imaginable , just to free themselves of unavoidable otherwise obligation to prove validity of Positive Assertion they make.