Evolution is a valid scientific theory

In logic we call it a "straw man" argument.

 

He's not interested in debate. He demands submission to his declarations.
He's immature and not up for a disscussion with adults. All he does is post spam and insist he's right. He acts like he's fucking 10, for christ sake.

 

Well how was i suppose to know that, you only told me to read the last 6 lines

But i will say, i make no claim to have read the 1000's of posts in the three threads about this discussion (including the one you managed to hijack).

 

Yes, he is arguing like a dickhead, im pretty sure he is making alot of it up as he goes along and is well aware of this. I never said he was a good example of of some one engaged in argument. But sometimes pushing things to the extreme in the wrong way is the best example of what others (on this site) are doing wrong.

It also teaches how to deal with a troll (if you don't know what Jumbuli55 is doing atm, then get a clue), how not to react when arguing against some one who is breaking all the rules in the book.

If any one out there honestly wishes to prove that the belief in evolutionism is reasonable, then they should simply do so and ignore Jumbuli55 responses, if you can live with your work and effort being buried in piles of rambling.

The point is if you're getting upset by all his you're trying to hard and in the wrong place. Jumbuli55 is trolling you and doing a good job.

 

Well, now you know

No problems, I copy-pasted some fragments above , those basically outline my views (that I had to repeat 10000 times already, since every other post some troll comes along and repeats the question I already answered )

 

Actually, I'm not upset at all. I'm one hell of a debater.
But jubulli is spaming this thread a page at a time, which renders a productive discussion impracticle.

Frankly, I'm begining to fear for his mental health. He continues to grow more and more irrational. Obviously, he's got way to much of his life wrapped up in protecting his ego.

Oh well. There's one in every crowd.

 

I only talk about "Darwinism" in quotes, with reference to the propaganda put forward by the anti-evolutionists, as my posts quoted by Jumbuli make clear. I prefer the term "New Synthesis".

 

I read about the snowball earth theory too as a possible explanation for the Cambrian explosion. Since it may have happened over a 5 million year period is that still enough time for RM+NS to be the dominant mechanism? Perhaps other mechanisms such as the stabilization process or still unknown processes were at play.

 

Why don't you prove your claim instead of engaging in ad hominem argument insisting that anyone who doubts you are propaganda machines put forward by some mythical anti-evolutionists?
In all fairness, it sounds more like you are the one doing propaganda here (repeating the same assertion without ever backing it up).

Will you now proceed with your argument?

 

Monkeyboy,
Definitely.
It's naive to think an isolated mechanism is responsible for the direction of evolution.

There may well be primary mechs, but there must also be secondary, and tertiary, etc. Probably, if a complete analysis were possible, we would smack headlong into chaos theory, as existence itself appears to be an Evolutionary Mechanism.

 

Oh, but thats my whole point, even if Jumbuli55 were not here, we would not be having a productive discussion i do not believe. I believe we would either be banging our heads against the wall as two genuine sides, unwilling to change, trying to change each other. Or we end up blowing smoke up each others asses because we agree.

Nothing on this site is going to change, regardless of Jumbuli55, do not waste your time here period having a serious debate, unless you are aware of who you are engaging and are prepared for that debate to turn to shit when every one else gets their 2 cents in.

 

Yeah, it is a puzzle and I'm only interested in knowing the evidence and possible mechanisms so I can make my own informed decision. I think a healthy dose of skeptism is a good thing when it comes to the ever changing nature of theoretical science.

 

I don't think it is fair to say Okie's argument was a personal attack on the argument (or ad hominem as we educated people say ) because he claimed your information was propaganda with out pointing out why and than turn around and say he is guilty of propaganda as well with out pointing out why.

Even if you are correct in both instances, there is no fairness in that .

Although, i must admit at this point, i find it interesting your claims of personal attacks when you yourself are so fond of associating religion and evolutionists through your rhetoric. To say that the opposition is foolish and relying on religious belief in evolution is also an ad hominem,

 

Xac,

To be frank, there's no real debate here because there aren't enough people with enough knowledge to debate very damn much.

But monkeyboy seems to be gathering insight, and that makes it all worth it.
Perhaps his tentative conclusions will be enlightening when he reaches them.

 

Its a valid theory, but when people start using it as a fact it gets a bit annoying. Its an interesting theory, entertaining to study and explore, but for every piece of evidence that points to its validity, you can find one that debunks it.

 

If anything favorable can be said about Jumbuli's arguments, I think it's that they challenge our complacency in accepting established scientific views uncritically. However, I think that can be carried to a ridiculous extreme. On the previous site, I assembled evidence that evolution is the view supported by the great majority of scientific experts, despite efforts of Creationists and ID supporters to convince us otherwise. That's an important piece of evidence for me. I don't think it's necessary for me to go out and try to dig up the missing link before I can accept evolution as valid. I make judgments about the credibility of experts. Scientists who do their own research in the field and publish in peer reviewed journals of their disciplines carry far more weight with me that people who may hold science degrees but are essentially full time apologists for a religious viewpoint. Behe, Spetner, and so many other ID and Creationist scientists bypass the peer review process, which is central to the scientific enterprise. When they do that, I'm suspicious. And I'm always suspicious of people with axes to grind. When I read about people getting science doctorates for the principal purpose of destroying evolutionary theory, I suspect strong bias. Morris, father of Creationism, and Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Darwin did that. When I heard that Lee Spetner claimed to have derived this theory from the Talamud, my crap detectors are on high alert. I don't think this is ad hominem. An ad hominem attack would try to discredit a person's arguments by pointing to irrelevant personal characteristics, like wife beating or skirt chasing. But impeaching the credibility of a witness is something different. If a person is presenting expert testimony in an area with which the jury is unfamiliar, it isn't irrelevant for a lawyer to point out that one witness has a perjury conviction and is on the payroll of one of the parties. But of course the evidence and arguments are central. So far, evolution seems to be holding its own.

 

So far I don't see overwhelming majority of posters doing anything but keep repeating "this theory is proven because it's proven and there is mountain of evidence for it because there is. And if you still ask for more then you are ____________ (fill in the blank with any insult you can imagine )

Well, I think I have read about similar hypothesis in works of C. Jung.
It dealt with human unconsciousness and his attempts to understand it.

But here is the thing: aside from "outer space aliens" (which clearly is the product of human imagination, unless one has evidence to contrary) , the fact of phenomena itself (various objects seen in skies, of various luminosity, shape and form, either suspended or moving or else) is not a hallucinogenic, imaginary thing. (if it is then one must study what causes adult, mentally normal, average people to hallucinate en mass).

But origin of it or what it actually is remains unknown.
It could be the meteorological phenomena or could be whatever, what do I know.

And as long as I don't know what it actually is (aside from what people imagine it to be) I can come up with any fancy "theory" I wish to explain it but it won't be scientifically valid by definition.

I never said our existence is nothing to explain. What I say is that the process whereby species come into existence is the phenomena. And that we don't possess enough knowledge to be able to explain it.
If there is any misunderstanding, I dont think it has anything to do with my comprehension of what the word phenomena means or what it implies.

Why is it so terrible example?

Well, UFO exists. But what do you know about it to claim anything about it's properties?
And if I make an absurd claim such as "UFO IS A ROCKET THAT FLIES ON HORSEPOOP" how you actively argue to disprove it?
Can you disprove it ?
And if no, do I have a valid scientific theory there?
If you say yes then I have nothing to argue with you any further lol
If you say no, then I will ask why Darwinists do.

Neither is applicable

I make no excuses, Darwinists do.

Then what are you doing debating with me? lol

I don't see you showing it to be so.

See above.

 

As you pointed out earlier, these forums are primarily for opinion. When I characterize something as propaganda, I'm conveying my impressions based on observations. The Creationists make arguments I believe are specious. I think it's silly to expect me to engage in some sort of formal proof of that. Check out their websites and see what you think. When I say Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, yes I'm voicing an opinion. Do I need to back it up with proof? Do I need to prove that Fox News is biased? It wouldn't be difficult, but it would take some research. Is it ad hominem to say that everything Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter says must be considered on its merits and independently researched, or is it legitimate to say as I do that they've blown their credibility and not to believe a word they say?. When Lee Spetner says his theory of non-random mutation can be derived from the Talamud, I form a judgment, based on personal experience, that the guy may not be playing with a full deck. I don't think that's ad hominem, because it bears on his credibility. Yes, we have an obligation to read and evaluate his arguments, but it's not unreasonable to be extremely cautious after that information.

 

Actually, there isn't any evidence that "debunks" the concept of Bio-Evolution. Lots of propaganda, but no evidence.

However, there is plenty of evidence, both empirical and philosophical, that tends to validate the concept.

 

Such as?