Evolution is not a fact, but it is as close as it gets.

Disagree with the premise of the game? Tell us why we're wrong, and bring the evidence to prove it!
User avatar
SingingST
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:16 pm

Re: Evolution is not a fact, but it is as close as it gets.

Post by SingingST » Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:24 pm

Trisdino wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:14 pm
... Even if you drop it a thousand times, and it always falls down, you cannot be sure that it would not fall up if you had done it one more time...
...ok THAT'S the exact moment when my paranoia intensifies. :roll: :lol:

User avatar
BakedToast
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:31 pm
Location: The Labyrinth of Sludge

Re: Evolution is not a fact, but it is as close as it gets.

Post by BakedToast » Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:30 am

Trisdino wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:14 pm
Even if you drop it a thousand times, and it always falls down, you cannot be sure that it would not fall up if you had done it one more time.
Actually, yes you can; you can simply drop the pencil again. The laws of physics have countless representations, consistently, over and over again.
If you brush all this evidence away, you essentially say that no evidence of anything is ever sufficient to prove it, which means that your statement of evolution being "as close to fact as it gets" is also something that has no bearing and can be viewed as simply arrogant rambling.
By embracing such "There are no absolutes and we can't prove anything" thinking, you cut your own ideas and efforts off at the knees by reducing their significance to nothing. Pragmatically, that simply isn't wise.

Trisdino wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:14 pm
This does not mean that evolution, and any other scientific theory should be ignored, because just as the odds of religion being true are less then 0,(insert as many zeros as you want, and then add a 1 at the end), the odds of evolution being true are still 99,999999999999999. This may seem like a technicality, but it proves that must creationists do not know what they are talking about, because in science, technicalities are incredibly important.
Given your above argument, you then state that the odds of [any] religion (I will assume you mean a religion with some sort of deity, or multiple, that created everything) being less than 0 and that the odds of evolution (I will assume you mean abiogenesis via evolution, since that's the most common antithesis to creation) are an astronomically high number (which I think you merely spammed a bunch of 9's to get), and justify your argument solely by the above argument that evidence is useless and is of no significance, thus allowing you to make such a statement and appear believable.

You also state that scientific theories shouldn't be ignored, but by your above logic, if your above logic was true, then yes, they should be ignored, as they can't prove anything; so, rather than swallow that load of tripe, and throw out every scientific theory I or anyone else has learned, I'll simply state that your argument is clearly full of holes, as that's the more pragmatic option.

You then add that technicalities are important, which further contradicts your entire previous argument, since [as a technicality] "less than 0" as a probability is a statistical impossibility and you brazenly act as though such an argument to refute your comment wouldn't somehow be a technicality in and of itself.

Maybe "creationists" (you lump them all together in one group, as if they're all the same, a classic post-modern manouvre, also known as stereotyping, a form of prejudice) don't know what they're talking about, but neither do you, given your arguments.

-----------

I could delve into the creationist-evolutionist debate cycle and type till I'm blue in the face, but that's clearly not what this is about, at least not for you. It's not about the evidence, or lack thereof, because your own viewpoint stipulates evidence as being insignificant.

In fact, just as you might see "creationists" (again, you see them as one group, all the same) as uneducated, there are many who might see one like yourself, who can't construct a stable argument about their evolutionary beliefs, as misguided; taking for truth (via faith, just like those religious ones you seem to despise) everything you hear from those you look up to, believing it to be scientifically true without investigating it yourself; in a desire [a hope, perhaps?], that maybe there isn't a divine being of some sort who holds you accountable.
I Sculpt Tabletop Miniatures!

User avatar
Tiberius
Posts: 5074
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 3:28 am
Location: Canada

Re: Evolution is not a fact, but it is as close as it gets.

Post by Tiberius » Tue Jan 07, 2020 12:04 am

Actually, yes you can; you can simply drop the pencil again.
Yes but what if the time after that it dosen't fall? Its a recursive problem that can only be solved by dropping it infinitely. You've totally ignored the actual concept for the sake of reductionism.
If you brush all this evidence away, you essentially say that no evidence of anything is ever sufficient to prove it, which means that your statement of evolution being "as close to fact as it gets" is also something that has no bearing and can be viewed as simply arrogant rambling.
By embracing such "There are no absolutes and we can't prove anything" thinking, you cut your own ideas and efforts off at the knees by reducing their significance to nothing. Pragmatically, that simply isn't wise.
This is what is known as a run-on sentence. Regardless you've misunderstood what the point is. What he's talking about is more or less the difference between math and science. You can never prove anything completely in science, but you can in math. I can say with total confidence 1+1=2 and if a=b and b=c then a=c. I can't say that it's impossible that gravity doesn't exist. There could be another explanation for why it appears to exist in so many places, but I can also say that chance is non-zero, and thus unimportant.

Evolution is approaching gravity levels of verified. We have literal mountains of evidence for it. There could be an alternate explanation for everything older than six thousand years, but its non-zero.
Given your above argument, you then state that the odds of [any] religion (I will assume you mean a religion with some sort of deity, or multiple, that created everything) being less than 0 and that the odds of evolution (I will assume you mean abiogenesis via evolution, since that's the most common antithesis to creation) are an astronomically high number (which I think you merely spammed a bunch of 9's to get), and justify your argument solely by the above argument that evidence is useless and is of no significance, thus allowing you to make such a statement and appear believable.
This whole paragraph is based on the misunderstanding so I don't really have a ton to say. Science can't really verify religion, in the same way, I can't verify the existence of aliens that look like humans but with weird foreheads. Its just difficult to prove a negative. Regardless I also don't think there's a great chance of those aliens existing, given what I know about evolution and the chances of an alien evolving to look just like us.
You also state that scientific theories shouldn't be ignored, but by your above logic, if your above logic was true, then yes, they should be ignored, as they can't prove anything; so, rather than swallow that load of tripe, and throw out every scientific theory I or anyone else has learned, I'll simply state that your argument is clearly full of holes, as that's the more pragmatic option.

You then add that technicalities are important, which further contradicts your entire previous argument, since [as a technicality] "less than 0" as a probability is a statistical impossibility and you brazenly act as though such an argument to refute your comment wouldn't somehow be a technicality in and of itself.
Same misunderstanding, but your are correct that he said less than zero, rather than non-zero, but that particular word dosen't really affect the argument and its obvious what he meant.
Maybe "creationists" (you lump them all together in one group, as if they're all the same, a classic post-modern manouvre, also known as stereotyping, a form of prejudice) don't know what they're talking about, but neither do you, given your arguments.
He's bad at articulating his ideas, but he's got the basic idea down.

In fact, just as you might see "creationists" (again, you see them as one group, all the same) as uneducated, there are many who might see one like yourself, who can't construct a stable argument about their evolutionary beliefs, as misguided; taking for truth (via faith, just like those religious ones you seem to despise) everything you hear from those you look up to, believing it to be scientifically true without investigating it yourself; in a desire [a hope, perhaps?], that maybe there isn't a divine being of some sort who holds you accountable.
I don't know if you're projecting or what, but "in a desire [a hope, perhaps?], that maybe there isn't a divine being of some sort who holds you accountable" is really something. I had to stifle a laugh when I read that. I can see why you like Jordan Petersen. And if you respond please cut out the run-on sentences. It makes your writing harder to parse.

I should also point out he is wrong in that evolution, in particular, doesn't entirely invalidate old earth creationism, although intelligent design goes against our understanding of evolution you can't really argue against it with the evidence we have.


EDIT
And while I would personally call Evolution a fact, fact isn't really defined well in an academic sense so it is debatable, but ultimately just a matter of terminology.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests