Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

You, sir need a spell checker.

 

You didn't. Just a friendly warning. You can be the multitudes for all I care.

But come on-- you gotta admitt. it's kind of a weeny thing to do.

 

To be specific: if anyone comes up and says [like Darwinists do] "this is a scientifically valid theory , now you must either believe me or else you are an idiot", then guess what?
Then I say those who make such claim [that it is in fact a scientifically valid theory] are obligated to prove it.

Simple as that.

Let's see if you have any.
Why don't you show us what makes you believe so strongly that this hoax called "Evolutionary Biology", "New Synthesis", "Darwinism" or whatever you wish to cal it has anything to do with science?

Who says it "scares me" or that it's in any way affecting my judgement?
For all I know some day I will die, just like everyone else, whether I fear it or not.
Doesn't make me deny the fact that I am mortal.

I observe that nature is in constant move.
That doesn't make me believe though that gas stove is the grandpa of the vehicle.

What questions I hide from?
You keep repeating the same assertion "so is so because it is so!".
But merely repeating same assertion doesn't make it valid.
Why don't you show us what your assertion is based on ?
Is it because you are afraid to expose your own ignorance?

If you claim the theory is scientifically valid you are obliged to prove it.
That's all that matters as far as subject matters concerned.

The rest is Tall Tales and Ad Hominem arguments.

Ok, now proceed!

I am obliged to say nothing because I made no Positive Assertion in regards.
It is your obligation to say what makes you believe it is a scientifically valid theory.

 

You got that right.
But I don't see one here(?)
I spend hours a day writing, and I'm totally addicted to the auto spellcheck.

 

Being called a hypocrite by a liar can only make me laugh

 

If it was something I did, I would. You warn me for no reason. Do any have anything to say about the content of my statements. So far all the self professed heavyweights have only suggested that I didn't make them.

 

OK. Having raised two teenage daughters alone, I have developed Spock-like patients. So I will address your post, BUT, I expect give and take discussion, not insults and cut-and-paste.

"Then I say those who make such claim [that it is in fact a scientifically valid theory] are obligated to prove it."

It's The Theory of Evolution, not The Law of Evolution.

First of all, "prove" is not how it works with theories. If it we're proven, it would be the LAW of Evolution, and it would be subject to mathematical analyisis.
Enough obsevations have been collected to give enough creedence to the THEORY, that it is generally accepted by other qualified individuals (YOU are not qualified), and THAT means it's the best availible explanation that covers the data availible without violating any Univerial Laws.

Bio- Evolution is a Scientific THEORY. Do you understand?

"Let's see if you have any.
Why don't you show us what makes you believe so strongly that this hoax called "Evolutionary Biology" hs anything to do with science?"

I don't believe in anything-- I have some degree of understanding.
I will explain it to you. I already started...
With the Quantum Nature of the Universe. Do you understand how that demonstrates the Dynamic Nature of Existence?

"Who says it "scares me" or that it's in any way affecting my judgement?
For all I know some day I will die, just like everyone else, whether I fear it or not.
Doesn't make me deny the fact that I am mortal."

I'll leave this to your theapist.

"I observe that nature is in constant move.
That doesn't make me believe though that gas stove is the grandpa of the vehicle."

Speak straight-- you don't understand what I mean by the Dynamic Nature of Existence, I take it?

"What questions I hide from?
You keep repeating the same assertion "so is so because it is so!".
But merely repeating same assertion doesn't make it valid.
Why don't you show us what your assertion is based on ?
Is it because you are afraid to expose your own ignorance?"

As I said-- I'd be glad to. Will you quit with the spamming me?

"If you claim the theory is scientifically valid you are obliged to prove it.
That's all that matters as far as subject matters concerned."

This has been dispiosed of above.

"The rest is Tall Tales and Ad Hominem arguments."

Physics is NOT a tall tale. It is a rigorous, mathematical Science that borders on Philosophy.

"Ok, now proceed!"

I shall. But first go back and read my post on the Quantum Nature of the Universe. I need to know if you understand the priciple of a Quantum Change.

"I am obliged to say nothing because I made no Positive Assertion in regards."

Whatever you have to tell yourself. I can speak Knowledgably and at lenght on the subject.

"It is your obligation to sa what makes you believe it is a scientifically valid theory."

I've established by every convention in civilization, that Evolution is indeed, a Scientific theory. You don't get to rewrite the english language, or the scientific method.

Now-- answer my question, and I'll tell you why the Evolution of life is inevitable. But we start at the begining. The Quantum Nature of the Universe.
Do you get it?

 

Wrong? It's against the rules, that's all.

I don't know what statements you mean. Show me.
And since you admit freely to cut and paste, I'll take your word for authorship.
But as to validity, I'll be the judge of that.

 

I think he might believe Jumbuli's charge that you and I are the same person. Actually, on another site, Jumbuli and I were accused of being the same person. How do we know? How do we know this thing we call reality isn't a computer simulation run by aliens or evil robots who have taken over the real world? Professor Nick Bostrom, a professor at Oxford, believes it is. According to NY Times columnist Tierney:". . . if you accept a pretty reasonable assumption of Dr. Bostrom’s, it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else’s computer simulation." And how do we know that Satan didn't seed the earth with fossils to confuse us? If geckopelli can't determine whether or not you and I are the same person, how can he claim to be able to tell whether or not the evidence for evolution is sound?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedope View Post
There is no fossil record. There are geologic deposits and fossils in those deposits. Memory is living tissue. There is no evidence for past events. There is evidence of current. There is no true north, but there are corridors of refraction.
I am pointing out that record keeping is a human activity, not a geologic one. That there is evidence of current, or direction, of flow acknowledges the information provided by okiefreak. An event, passed or future, is an indefinite parameter. Current events are observable. The event of distinct species belies the transitional nature of all forms. This is not an exercise in word play.
The way we parse these things greatly influences the way in which we consider them as in, my best friend waxed my girlfriend, or my best friend waxed on and on about my girlfriend. We suggest to ourselves that life appears at such and such a point as though a new law of physics had appeared just then. This gives us the impression that survivability is dependent upon conformity to this new law, fitness.
Multiplication is exponential growth. A fish may lay a thousand eggs of which ten may survive to maturity. From the fitness perspective we get the idea that success is a crap shot and that nine hundred ninety eggs had been misfires. From the perspective of exponential growth every egg suits the purpose exactly. The more remote the probability the greater the rate of success. From this perspective any level of mutation supports the evolutionary model in the same way that Jumbuli is assured of, "winning", by maintaining the ambiguous position that he doesn't have to prove anything. Natures thrust may not be toward the perfection of form, from simple species to more advanced, to be best suited, but to make more of itself, an expanding universe. From this perspective, a changing environment is not at emnity with the creatures that live in it and there is no struggle to survive. From this perspective life is not a serendipitous event, but guaranteed. You can't get rid of the stuff

 

Gimme a break. WTF does that have to do with ANYTHING.

YOU said you were the same person. I just gave you the benefit of the doubt and credited you with being honest. But, my dis-honest friend, the moderator will simply look up your IP if she grows interested.

Professor of what? The Quote is given without context.

 

I never implied it's a law of Evolution.

Well, first of all, as Okiefreak suggested, you need to improve your reading comprehension skills.

What I ask for is proof of statement that Modern Theory of Evolution is Scientifically Valid Theory.
Evidently you missed the point all along and instead decided to lecture me on what theory is.

What observatios are those?
How are those giving credence to the Theory?
You must be specific.
I have heard "this is valid theory because there is mountain of evidence to support it" mantra at least a thousand times in past.
Nobody really bothers to show that evidence though (the only person who lately attempted to at least try to quote anything relevant was Okiefreak).

Doesn't matter to me who is quilified or not.
This is inverse and direct ad hominem arguments.
If astronomers decided to hold on to Ptolemaic model to our own days, merely because they decided to hold on to it, doing so wouldn't make Ptolemaic model a scientifically valid model of Universe today.

And I observe it to be a Tall Tale.

I understand that you are saying it's a Theory.
I don't unerstand how you expect me to believe it to be scientifically valid theory, merely because you ask if I understand what you are asserting.

Let's see just how well and what you understand.

Good, let's see...

I am not a physicist.
However I have read some literature about the subject of Quantum Physics, most of all enjoyed writings of physicsts themselves, their reflections on nature of things and their utter amazement and befuddlement with what they observed. Have very high regard for most all of them who were in frontiers of major discoveries and believe those to be REAL Scientists.

There is no serious physicist I know of, btw, who would claim to comprehend the essence of the phenomena they were observing [and referring to] throughout many experiments with the matter.

But I will not allow you to change the subject. If you want to discuss quantum physics open another thread and those who wish may participate.

This thread is not about Quantum Physics.

This thread is about Evolutionary Biology , and even hoax perpetrating Darwinists don't claim to know their subject so well as to connect it with observed phenomena in quantum physics or to explain how life came into existence in the first place.

So, back to the subject of evolutionary biology.

I don't need to see my therapist merely because I am not in denial.
You were implying that I am not accepting evolutionary theory because I am "scared of" evolution.
And I am telling you that denial has nothing to do with it.

Watever you mean by it is up to you, I just don't see it as a proof of Darwinism being a Scientifically Valid Theory.

Who is spamming?

Really? Did I miss something?

Never did I claim tat physics is a Tall Tale.
It is actually one subject of science that I hold in very high regard.

No, I need not read your post about quantum physics or quantum nature of universe.
But you need to prove the claim that Darwinism has anything to do with Science.
Either that or you have no claim to begin with.

I get that you have presented noting so far except asserting that Darwinism is a valid theory merely because it is so, and also because you wrote something about Quantum Nature of Universe somewhere.

Are you kidding me?

Way too many Munchausens on this thread

 

Professor of philosophy and the 21st Century School, Director of the Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University. See his paper, http://www.simulation-argument.com/

I think the only person who said we were the same person was jumbuli. And if you called the moderator, you took the only reasonable course to clear up that confusion. I don't know whether or not you were referring to my post in asking what it had to do with anything, but you and another poster seemed to be going at it over the issue. It's also relevant in underscoring the fact that all human knowledge, including science, rests on making basic assumptions that we can't really prove, but simply accept. On what basis?

 

Jumbulli,
Your post clearly shows you to have an ego problem. How cares what you think-- you show a TOTAL lack of knowledge. You can't even understand the meaning og the word Theory!

Answer my question-- but you can't. You do fear questions.

You ignorance has grown boring.

And since you lack the ability to alter the dictionary or the foundations of Science the theory of Evolution stands, by definition and demonstration, as a Valid Scientific Theory.

Unless somebody beside our meglomanic friend and his creationist doppelgangger objects?

 

I'll read the paper later, but I hope you don't think Philosophy Profs are Scientist anymore than I am.

However, fuck you and the horse you rode in on! Just kiding-- sort of.
I would not dream of calling anything short of an impersonation to the Moderator's attention.

I doubt she needs help from me.

 

Speaking of being the same person, a couple of your previous posts are so fused with the dope's that I can't tell where one leaves off and the other begins. Could you please be more careful in separating your comments from the ones you're attacking in the future.