Objections to Evolution

@ElwoodBlues And what is that cartoonish objection?

@BibleData It's a valid alternative theory. It also happens to be non-testable, therefore non-falsifiable. What could be better than a non-falsifiable theory of EVERYTHING???

@ElwoodBlues
That was an artist incorrect interpretation of creation.

@ElwoodBlues So, you don't object to the FSM theory but you do object to Evolution itself?

@BibleData I didn't say that. Here, let me quote myself:


That exactly what I'm saying, nothing more and nothing less. Do I need to repeat myself as to the reason why as well?

@Pfuzylogic Were you there?

@ElwoodBlues Maybe if you just explained what the objection is. I think that should do it.

@BibleData It's an alternative theory that is non-falsifiable. Evolution, being an evidence-based theory, could be falsified by sufficient counter-evidence. FSM theory, being non-falsifiable, doesn't have that weakness.

@ElwoodBlues
It is just a matter of reading the Holy Bible. The artist incorrectly rendered the scene and you didn’t even respect the artist’s work.

@Pfuzylogic The Bible makes repeated references to "the four corners of the Earth" and I have to take that as a figure of speech because the Earth is a sphere not a quadrilateral. Similarly, I have to take the 7-day creation at 4000 BC as a figure of speech because mountains of evidence say the Earth is far older than 6000 years.

Although, on the plus side, the Bible is unfalsifiable (assuming God hid all those dinosaur bones in the rock and faked the radionucleotides appropriately, etc etc), just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster is unfalsifiable. So there's that.

@ElwoodBlues
At least you presented the hurdles that your mind can’t overcome.
This is a start for you.
It might also help to treat people kinder than you do currently.
The truth is that people had all of these push button answers from science that just don’t work anymore once new evidence is presented.
I do hope you manage through the current times with an undistorted view without resorting to mocking images of the “spaghettis monster” when you come across hurdles of things you don’t understand or can’t explain.

@Pfuzylogic I freely admit that God could hide those dinosaur bones and all those other fossils in the rock, fake the layers, and fake the concentrations of radionuclides to make the rocks appear hundreds of millions of years old with all the layers in appropriate order, and he could put photons in flight all thru the Universe making the earliest galaxies appear 14 billion years old, etc etc.

I have no problem with the notion that an all powerful God could do all that fakery and we would be none the wiser. (so could an all powerful FSM, by the way). My only question would be why? Why do all the fakery??

@ElwoodBlues
I think God created you the way you are.
someone very demanding and mock anything of creation so that you get answers the way that you want them. I had the very same type of students throughout the 90. They would act up until they got things their way.

@Pfuzylogic You think?? Implying there's room for doubt???

Doubt is good when attempting to explain ... well ... most everything that occcurs in the world outside our heads! Most of your statements express absolute certainty with no room for doubt. As if you couldn't accept the possibility that you might be wrong. Ignoring one's own fallibility would be, I think, a grave mistake.

As I said above, I accept the possibility that God (or the FSM) hid all the fossils, etc. and I ventured to ask "why?"

If 'why' is not a fair question, then please explain why it's unfair.
If 'why' IS a fair question, then please address it.

Oh, and remember, the same questions apply to the FSM and every other non-falsifiable explanation people have constructed.

@ElwoodBlues
I am not here to answer all your questions of life I am just sharing with you that many accepted facts in the past decade which were considered infallible have been proven wrong with new tools. Imagine that we had sciences I just simply accepted that red shift was a fact without any critical scientific examination and the “expansion” of the universe And that the universe was fine I just like Copernicus thought the earth as the center of the universe. we will get there.

@Pfuzylogic Nope. You're playing a game where you pretend to know when you don't actually know. You have confused faith with the inability to doubt your dubious claims.

I have to say, your attempt to deny red shift measurements is risible.

https://briankoberlein.com/post/how-far-weve-come/

@ElwoodBlues Would it be fair to say that each of you is more conversant on your position than the other's position? In other words, @Pfuzylogic can't explain your claims with faith and you can't explain his claims with facts? Is that what you are saying? And, perhaps more to the point, is there a contradiction in that faith of facts? Do people claim something is factual by claiming science says it is while maintaining that science corrects itself? Specifically that people using science correct themselves making facts obsolete?

@BibleData No - I've already made room for his claims. I can see a clear case for a 6000 year old Earth; I'm just wondering WHY all the fake fossils etc.

Not even close to what I'm saying. I'm saying everything in science is subject to doubt. Such as evolution , such as red shift, such as gravitation, etc etc.

BUT.

If you want to falsify any theory, you need to produce strong evidence to do so. Until such time, they are the best theories we have, and their explanatory power is far far greater than any other theories. Look, in science we often use theories we know to be 'philosophically' false, because they are approximately true and as such have great explanatory power. Newton's laws are an example.

If you want to convince me that a theory is false, you'll need evidence to do so. Assertions without evidence are silliness. Until you have evidence, the theory rises to the top because it has the most explanatory power.

@ElwoodBlues
Again you rely on a scientist’s bias that refuses to acknowledge new discoveries by Gaia round 3 data and confirmed by JWST. This is expected since many scientists have their beliefs vested in denounced theories.

@Pfuzylogic FALSE.

You can't dismiss a theory without engaging with the evidence.

It's like saying William Shockley was a terrible racist, so let's reject his theories. Problem is, transistor theory still works. Regardless of Shockley's motivations and personal shortcomings. Trying to dismiss a theory based on source is known in logic as the genetic fallacy. That's not even science; logic is a branch of math with provable theorems.

You can't dismiss a theory without engaging with the evidence.

However, since you've raised the subject of vested interests, care to disclose your own???

@ElwoodBlues
I expected your unexamined reaction.
Just because you have a degree higher than an undergraduate doesn’t mean you examine facts or with the required care of a professional.

@Pfuzylogic You're attacking the messenger. Is that because you can't argue against the message? In logic, that's known as the ad hominem fallacy.

@ElwoodBlues
You do know ad hominem fairly well.
i’ve tolerated you anyway. 😌

@Pfuzylogic Still avoiding the topic, are we?? LOL!!!

As I said above, I accept the possibility that God (or the FSM) hid all the fossils, etc. and I ventured to ask "why?"

If 'why' is not a fair question, then please explain why it's unfair.
If 'why' IS a fair question, then please address it.

@ElwoodBlues
Very well. I'm new so I'm not familiar with the details of your disagreement, but I can say there isn't any case for YEC. That's why I say creationism is nonsense just as I believe in the teachings of Moses and Jesus but think modern day Christianity is nonsense. All of that is another discussion, but suffice it to say that I see evolutionary science in pretty much the same light for similar reasons.


I recognize that and I think everything should be subject to doubt. Theology and science. Politics and everything. I'm a skeptic. Being skeptical, IMO, doesn't mean rejecting it means doubting the proposition as it is presented.


Skeptics always say that, but all it really means is the court decides what the evidence will be and even how to interpret that evidence. All you are really saying is that we have to think like you because you define the evidence. To suggest there isn't a great deal bias and groupthink in proponents and of science is naïve at best and dishonest at worst.