My thoughts on evolution and Darwinism

[abu afak]

Seymour Flops said:
The apparent design means that the burden of proof is on those claiming some other theory not involving design, but random processes.

Hysterical!
I'm claiming I don't know how life started for one.
You claim the Designer/god did it.
Burden is on You.

and second:
Proof is a false burden in science.
Evidence is where the meat is.
"apparent design" is a mere empty personal aesthetic OPINION like 'beautiful.'
I have to "Prove it's not beautiful??"

In fact, you are so Dishonest in trying to Shift the Burden, you weaken your claim from "Design" for which you have/have posted NO Evidence, to "apparent design" a mere aesthetic opinion.
Who the F cares!
vs
"Actual Evolution" Which has overwhelming EVIDENCE.

Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)​

I could also weaken that to "apparent evolution" to try and shift the burden to you, but I don't have to because I have Huge EVIDENCE of ACTUAL Evolution.

More BS semantics.
You are and remain a FRAUD.
You Cannot debate me.
`

 

[abu afak]

Seymour Flops said:
Ok, then.

Give me the three best pieces of evidence for Darwin's theory.

Non sequitur.
You just whiffed on my post pointing out you are full of ****, as always.

"apparent design" is an aesthetic opinion like 'beautiful', 'good looking.'

To be Honest, your 'burden' is ACTUAL Design for which you cannot and have not posted ANY Evidence.
ZERO.
And you have Lied dozens of times that you have.

I just posted a thread that has Nothing but evidence for 'ACTUAL evolution' and tons of it.

Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)​

also other threads and hundreds of posts within on this page doing so.

I asked you to do the same for design.
You WHIFFED/PUNKED and said I should start one for you!!
Because the fact is you have Nothing.

You're a 100% Charlatan/fraud.

 

[Seymour Flops]

abu afak you need some new material, bud.

I'm going to stop responding until you stop cutting and pasting the same nonsense.

Nothing personal.

 

[abu afak]

abu afak you need some new material, bud.

I'm going to stop responding until you stop cutting and pasting the same nonsense.

Nothing personal.

I don't need anything else, I DESTROYED Your DISHONEST semantic game.
You need any material, as you have posted None for 'Design'. (actual design)
`

 

[frigidweirdo]

The apparent design is the evidence of a designer.

Given that, it is up to doubters of design to prove their case.

Or at least to provide some evidence that their doubts are anything more than wishful thinking.

So, you think you see something, therefore this is evidence that there is a designer?

So, if a schizo sees a giant monster, it's proof the monster had a mother and father?

I don't need to prove anything when the logic is so bad.

 

[Hollie]

abu afak you need some new material, bud.

I'm going to stop responding until you stop cutting and pasting the same nonsense.

Nothing personal.

You can’t make a defendable argument. You deflect and insist that others disprove your nonsense claims.

Ok. Let’s use the nonsense theme of your argument, I have disproven your nonsense claims. Prove I haven’t.

You’re feelings are hurt. Assuage that emotional trauma by cutting and pasting more Richard Dawkins ‘’quotes”.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I see your point.

But if we're already talking about Dawkins, we know what his name is.

Is English your first language? Saying it that way reminds me of a maid in a movie about English gentry, or a movie about the rural southern U.S.

I don't think you would make the mistake about Hawking's theory if you knew the conventions for the apostrophe.

I would know the difference between "The Sage's theory," and "The Sages' theory."

But your idea is fine, if you can get agreement on it.

Our Lord Jeesuh

Like Gresham's Law, you disprove Darwinism. Because of the undeserved prestige of those who stupidly make s followed by only an apostrophe the possessive of names ending in s (even Jesus, as in "Jesus' mother, Mary"), unfit grammar is replacing intelligently designed grammar. It doesn't matter at all that the correct names are well known. You are incapable of thinking abstractedly. Besides, Dawkins's name is not that well-known.

Because of your slavishness to the Illiterate Liberal Language Lords' permissive grammar, you refuse to listen to evidence discrediting their education. When President Trump gave a medal to the widow of a Navy Seal named Owens, the Low-IQ Infobimbos said it was given to "Owens' widow." The next day dumbed-down viewers started repeating his last name as "Owen."

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I asked a similar question. I was told that the “appearance of design”, the appearance of design regarding humans, animals and all of nature, was so convincing that no other alternative was possible.

I made the point that “appearance of flatness” regarding our view of the planet was an equally convincing argument for a flat earth with no other alternative possible.

The offended creationist did a quick skedaddle and left the thread

Wealth for the First-Generation Fittest Only, Comfort for the Rest Who Are in Any Way Fit

But so skedaddle the language-Darwinists. In fact, many fanatical Creationists become fanatical Darwinists and vice versa. The belief in Survival of the Fittest based on inheritance is a cancer on civilization, so it can't be evolutionary. The guillotine is.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The egg came first with new mutations

Those Who Eat Omelets Murder Chicks

True, but you're also getting into the Pro-Lifers' fetus fetish by calling an unborn chicken a live chicken.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Our Lord Jeesuh

Like Gresham's Law, you disprove Darwinism.

A lot to unpack in those six words.

I'm happy if I disprove Darwinism, not that disproving that Rube Goldberg scheme is a great accomplishment.

Gresham's law about bad currency driving out good currency? That's a real stretch to say that correct grammar replacing incorrect grammar is akin to bad currency driving out good currency

Is the name pronounced Gress-ham (like the meat), or Gress-um, or Gre-shum?

Because of the undeserved prestige of those who stupidly make s followed by only an apostrophe the possessive of names ending in s (even Jesus, as in "Jesus' mother, Mary"), unfit grammar is replacing intelligently designed grammar. It doesn't matter at all that the correct names are well known. You are incapable of thinking abstractedly. Besides, Dawkins's name is not that well-known.

On this forum he is, since I have educated so many. You put a lot of thought into other people's use of words. May I assume that you would welcome any such correction of your own words? If so, keep reading!

Because of your slavishness to the Illiterate Liberal Language Lords' permissive grammar, you refuse to listen to evidence discrediting their education. When President Trump gave a medal to the widow of a Navy Seal named Owens, the Low-IQ Infobimbos said it was given to "Owens' widow." The next day dumbed-down viewers started repeating his last name as "Owen."

And this harmed the fallen Navy SEAL, how?

I'm guessing he would have been far more offended by you calling him a "Seal," which is a marine mammal, instead of a SEAL which is a member of a U.S. Navy Sea, Air, Land Team.

Unless this really was a seal that the Navy had who choked on a dead fish and left a grieving widow?

Hey, do you like jokes that are puns? Sure, who doesn't!

Why are walruses like Tuperware ladies?

Give up?

The both like a tight seal!

 

[Seymour Flops]

So, you think you see something, therefore this is evidence that there is a designer?

So, if a schizo sees a giant monster, it's proof the monster had a mother and father?

I don't need to prove anything when the logic is so bad.

If it was just me, you'd have a point.

But design was apparent for centuries, in the complicated mechanisms of life on Earth. Why do you think it took Darwinism to make atheism intellectually fulfilling? Why was it not fulfilling before Darwin? Because of the apparent design.

You can try to rewrite that part of history, if you like. To do that, a whole lot of writing that took place before Darwin will have to be thrown down the memory hole.

 

[Hollie]

If it was just me, you'd have a point.

But design was apparent for centuries, in the complicated mechanisms of life on Earth. Why do you think it took Darwinism to make atheism intellectually fulfilling? Why was it not fulfilling before Darwin? Because of the apparent design.

You can try to rewrite that part of history, if you like. To do that, a whole lot of writing that took place before Darwin will have to be thrown down the memory hole.

Ah. The Behe groupie and the apparent design™ slogan.

Comical the creationers can’t identify any apparent design™.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If it was just me, you'd have a point.

But design was apparent for centuries, in the complicated mechanisms of life on Earth. Why do you think it took Darwinism to make atheism intellectually fulfilling? Why was it not fulfilling before Darwin? Because of the apparent design.

You can try to rewrite that part of history, if you like. To do that, a whole lot of writing that took place before Darwin will have to be thrown down the memory hole.

Lots of things are "apparent". We see patterns all over the place.

We create a God or gods. And we then see things and attribute them to this God or gods.

Yes, the world is a complex place. That doesn't mean it has to have been designed. That's a ridiculous argument. I could look a plant and say, "well, must have been made by humans, just look at it."

I'm not re-writing anything. I'm saying we don't know things. I'm saying that if design is "apparent" then God MUST HAVE BEEN DESIGNED.

Remember, if a plant has to have been designed because it's complex, then the designer also must have been complex. And the designer's designer. And the designer's designer's designer, and on, and on, and on.

The argument doesn't make sense in the slightest. Because something has to have appeared out of nowhere in order to have created the first things. And if that first thing came out of nowhere, then ANYTHING can have come out of nowhere. Rendering the designer unemployed.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Lots of things are "apparent". We see patterns all over the place.

We create a God or gods. And we then see things and attribute them to this God or gods.

Yes, the world is a complex place. That doesn't mean it has to have been designed. That's a ridiculous argument. I could look a plant and say, "well, must have been made by humans, just look at it."

I'm not re-writing anything. I'm saying we don't know things. I'm saying that if design is "apparent" then God MUST HAVE BEEN DESIGNED.

Remember, if a plant has to have been designed because it's complex, then the designer also must have been complex. And the designer's designer. And the designer's designer's designer, and on, and on, and on.

The argument doesn't make sense in the slightest. Because something has to have appeared out of nowhere in order to have created the first things. And if that first thing came out of nowhere, then ANYTHING can have come out of nowhere. Rendering the designer unemployed.

Yes, that is the infinite regression of causes paradox.

That paradox is a flaw in design theory, but also in any purely naturalistic explanation of life on Earth. The furthest back any naturalistic explanation of life goes is to DNA.

So, to fully explain this "theory," in chronological order, you would have to say, "In the beginning, there was DNA," with no explanation at all for how DNA got here.

Even if you could come up with a plausible explanation, it does not explain the existence of the universe and why the universe is so well suited to nurturing life on Earth.

 

[abu afak]

Yes, that is the infinite regression of causes paradox.

That paradox is a flaw in design theory, but also in any purely naturalistic explanation of life on Earth. The furthest back any naturalistic explanation of life goes is to DNA.

So, to fully explain this "theory," in chronological order, you would have to say, "In the beginning, there was DNA," with no explanation at all for how DNA got here.

Even if you could come up with a plausible explanation, it does not explain the existence of the universe and why the universe is so well suited to nurturing life on Earth.

What a MESS! A Big Stupid Claim MESS.
Mixing and matching the Universe and life AGAIN!
(Very Genesis, very Creationist!)

But in fact there are MANY things wrong/completely Ignorant in you post.
Standout one..
RNA preceded DNA... probably other before that.

(see the whole page linked below too. You're in the Total Kweationist Dark.

""... The RNA world​

Main article: RNA world​

The RNA world hypothesis describes an early Earth with self-replicating and catalytic RNA but No DNA or proteins.[82] It is widely Accepted that Current life on Earth descends from an RNA world,[17][83][84] although RNA-based life may not have been the first to exist.[18][19]​

​

RNA is central to the translation process; that small RNAs can catalyze all of the chemical groups and information transfers required for life;[19][85] that RNA both expresses and maintains genetic information in modern organisms; and that the chemical components of RNA are easily synthesized under the conditions that approximated the early Earth. The structure of the ribozyme has been called the "smoking gun", with a central core of RNA and no amino acid side chains within 18 Å of the active site that catalyzes peptide bond formation.[18][86]​

But again, You badly need the whole page/Basics.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Everything you post is Spectacularly wrong, or then Lies and Short Quotes to cover it up.

`

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, that is the infinite regression of causes paradox.

That paradox is a flaw in design theory, but also in any purely naturalistic explanation of life on Earth. The furthest back any naturalistic explanation of life goes is to DNA.

So, to fully explain this "theory," in chronological order, you would have to say, "In the beginning, there was DNA," with no explanation at all for how DNA got here.

Even if you could come up with a plausible explanation, it does not explain the existence of the universe and why the universe is so well suited to nurturing life on Earth.

Could we not simply say "I don't know"?

Why do we have to pretend there's an explanation that we can comprehend, when we can't? Why not just wait until we have more clues?

Mostly because humans are emotional, rather than logical. God is a synonym of "glue". The glue that fits in the massive gaps we have.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Could we not simply say "I don't know"?

Why do we have to pretend there's an explanation that we can comprehend, when we can't? Why not just wait until we have more clues?

Of course! That is exactly what we should do. We should approach any ideas about origins with an open mind and critical thinking, don’t you agree?

Mostly because humans are emotional, rather than logical. God is a synonym of "glue". The glue that fits in the massive gaps we have.

True dat.

In this science and technology forum, I am not the one who keeps bringing up God. I only talk about God as a hypothetical in response to someone else. I sometimes refer to the “Flying Spaghetti Monstor,” so that people - smart people - can understand that I have no emotional attachment to any “God.”

By the same token, the strong desire to stridently oppose even the possibility of an unknown intelligent influence being responsible for the apparent design of life on Earth is just as emotion driven, and just as religious, frankly.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Of course! That is exactly what we should do. We should approach any ideas about origins with an open mind and critical thinking, don’t you agree?

True dat.

In this science and technology forum, I am not the one who keeps bringing up God. I only talk about God as a hypothetical in response to someone else. I sometimes refer to the “Flying Spaghetti Monstor,” so that people - smart people - can understand that I have no emotional attachment to any “God.”

By the same token, the strong desire to stridently oppose even the possibility of an unknown intelligent influence being responsible for the apparent design of life on Earth is just as emotion driven, and just as religious, frankly.

There are religious people, atheists and non-religious. The latter being the ones who don't believe anything.

Sometimes though you come on for the intellectual learning and you make a case, regardless of what opinions you might have about a topic.

If someone religious tells me there's evidence of design, I'll explain my intellectual argument of why I think it's a load of crap.

The problem here seems to be that we're both on the same boat and it's not that interesting to slap each others's backs and say we're right. Then again those who disagree are often those unwilling to engage in serious conversation. C'est le vie.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yes, that is the infinite regression of causes paradox.

That paradox is a flaw in design theory, but also in any purely naturalistic explanation of life on Earth. The furthest back any naturalistic explanation of life goes is to DNA.

So, to fully explain this "theory," in chronological order, you would have to say, "In the beginning, there was DNA," with no explanation at all for how DNA got here.

Even if you could come up with a plausible explanation, it does not explain the existence of the universe and why the universe is so well suited to nurturing life on Earth.

If God Can Do All That, So Can Satan

Life and inanimate matter are poorly designed and also criminal. So the GODzillas present us with an incompetent and immoral Creator. Also, if you can claim that God was self-created or eternal, we can claim the same about DNA. You have no right to monopolize ideas or even morals.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

the strong desire to stridently oppose even the possibility of an unknown intelligent influence being responsible for the apparent design of life on Earth is just as emotion driven, and just as religious, frankly.

Like Communism, Theism's Foundational Unrealism Leads to Tyranny

No, it's not the same. That's a stupid academentia way of arguing: "It's a wash."

Theism is a childish and simple-minded theory. So agnosticism shouldn't equate it with rational analysis. If your era didn't know about gravity, what would you think of the theory that angels carry everything down that drops? An intelligent ancient person would say, "I don't know what causes falling, but it's certainly not that!"