You may ask "Which Universe Am I In?"

[scruffy]

This is metaphysics not science, science describes an already created universe not the creation of that universe.

So then, you shouldn't be in a science forum with that stuff.

The religion forum is right down the street.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So then, you shouldn't be in a science forum with that stuff.

The religion forum is right down the street.

Metaphysics isn't religion. If someone asks metaphysical questions in the science forum, they can expect metaphysical answers.

You shouldn't be in the science forum saying inanities like "Chemical bonding is biogenesis" and "chaos has nothing to do with determinism".

 

[scruffy]

Metaphysics isn't religion. If someone asks metaphysical questions in the science forum, they can expect metaphysical answers.

You shouldn't be in the science forum saying inanities like "Chemical bonding is biogenesis" and "chaos has nothing to do with determinism".

I promote science.

You promote metaphysics.

See how that works?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I promote science.

Not when you say "chemical bonding is biogenesis" or "chaos has nothing to do with determinism", that's promoting pseudo-science.

You promote metaphysics.

I no more "promote" metaphysic than I "promote" being rational or logical, they are what they are.

See how that works?

Yes, you're pseudo-scientist.

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.[Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.[4] It is not the same as junk science.[7]

 

[scruffy]

Not when you say "chemical bonding is biogenesis" or "chaos has nothing to do with determinism", that's promoting pseudo-science.

I no more "promote" metaphysic than I "promote" being rational or logical, they are what they are.

Yes, you're pseudo-scientist.

I think you're arrogant.

You think you know how God operates, and you don't.

You're incapable of handling obvious truths, because you're limited by a 3000 year old book.

You think human beings are special somehow, and we're not. We're made of chemical bonds just like everything else in this universe.

But don't let the truth stop you from your metaphysical ramblings.

You can have the last word.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When the goal is to prop up a hypothesis more than determine the truth, that's not science, it's dogma, the emphasis is on preserving the foundational belief in evolution. The very act of expressing doubt results in condemnation and threats of ex-communication.

You're religious and don't even know it.

Irrelevant babble.

The goal is to test the hypothesis.

This is more irrelevant babble that you reserve for a true theory that you don't like.

That's why you're not trying this nonsense out on quantum mechanics.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think you're arrogant.

You think you know how God operates, and you don't.

You're incapable of handling obvious truths, because you're limited by a 3000 year old book.

You think human beings are special somehow, and we're not. We're made of chemical bonds just like everything else in this universe.

But don't let the truth stop you from your metaphysical ramblings.

You can have the last word.

Don't post inanities like "chaos has nothing to do with determinism" or "chemical bonding is biogenesis" and not expect to be challenged or ridiculed.

 

[scruffy]

Don't post inanities like "chaos has nothing to do with determinism" or "chemical bonding is biogenesis" and not expect to be challenged or ridiculed.

I welcome challenges, as long as they're worthy.

Nothing you've said so far has been challenging.

All you've shown is a nonsensical belief system that's contradicted by piles upon piles of evidence

The only reason you're not on ignore is because you seem to know something about a parser I wasn't aware of - which I happen to be interested in because I did a lot of NLP in the old days (mostly in Lisp). I want to see if it might work for recursive grammars, of the kind Chomsky and Pearl talked about. I'll let you know once I get through the paper, I've been busy with other things.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nothing you've said so far has been challenging.

100% correct.

These poor saps spend way too much time in the muck with people who affirm them.

Then they come here and try out the same, tired, 4 or 5 talking points. And they think they are kicking ass and talking names.

Of course, this nonsense gets laughed out of any room of informed and educated people.

They honestly think they have challenged the truth of evolution. Which is sad and hilarious.

 

[Wuwei]

View attachment 1004839

In my cartoon Holmes replied,
"In each case we'd have a hypothesis and supporting evidence for it."
He fails to see that creationists cherry-pick some facts, often without understanding them and throw out all other facts that rebut their message.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In my cartoon Holmes replied,
"In each case we'd have a hypothesis and supporting evidence for it."
He fails to see that creationists cherry-pick some facts without understanding them and throw out all other facts that rebut their message.

In my experience, to a man, they know very, very little about evolution.

Yet they have somehow convinced themselves they are qualified to debunk it.

Which is hilarious.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

In my cartoon Holmes replied,
"In each case we'd have a hypothesis and supporting evidence for it."
He fails to see that creationists cherry-pick some facts, often without understanding them and throw out all other facts that rebut their message.

I wouldn't say that I "fail to see" by all means give examples of that though so I can look. I think one could level the same criticism at the evolutionists too. In the Cambrian explosion the absence of empirically expected evidence is often dismissed, minimized as an artifact and little further consideration given it. But when scrutinized the absence becomes more and more alarming, it is irreconcilable with the claims made about the past.

 

[Wuwei]

I wouldn't say that I "fail to see" by all means give examples of that though so I can look. I think one could level the same criticism at the evolutionists too. In the Cambrian explosion the absence of empirically expected evidence is often dismissed, minimized as an artifact and little further consideration given it. But when scrutinized the absence becomes more and more alarming, it is irreconcilable with the claims made about the past.

Yes, there are outliers in all complex sciences such as medicine, particle physics experiments, and evolution. The huge bulk of data largely form a very consistent picture of the origin of species.

Creationists throw away the the efficacy of radio isotope dating, the fact the the earth is billions of years old, and not just a few thousand. Creationists assume all creatures were formed in one day. The cherry-picked outliers are seen as evidence for the bible while ignoring all the rest of the physical and biological evidence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, there are outliers in all complex sciences such as medicine, particle physics experiments, and evolution. The huge bulk of data largely form a very consistent picture of the origin of species.

Creationists throw away the the efficacy of radio isotope dating, the fact the the earth is billions of years old, and not just a few thousand. Creationists assume all creatures were formed in one day. The cherry-picked outliers are seen as evidence for the bible while ignoring all the rest of the physical and biological evidence.

They don't understand any of that. They don't even know it exists, most of the time.

They are going blind and ignorant into an argument they lost 150 years ago.

With the expected results.

Of course, it's everyone else's fault, when they fail.

 

[Wuwei]

They don't understand any of that. They don't even know it exists, most of the time.

They are going blind and ignorant into an argument they lost 150 years ago.

With the expected results.

Of course, it's everyone else's fault, when they fail.

To me it's a conundrum. These people are reasonably smart, and so are some MAGA people, but they lack the wisdom to know where and how to apply their smarts. We-smarter-than-animal humans have this weird ability to hold logic and extreme illogic in our brains at the same time.

 

[scruffy]

Cambrian - I was just reading a thing about "resets" in the evolutionary stream, I'll see if I can find it and post it for y'all.

Catastrophic anoxic events in the ocean, two of them.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To me it's a conundrum. These people are reasonably smart, and so are some MAGA people, but they lack the wisdom to know where and how to apply their smarts. We-smarter-than-animal humans have this weird ability to hold logic and extreme illogic in our brains at the same time.

Right. Being smart doesn't mean being fluent or even informed in all topics.

And these peope may be MENSA officers, but they know exactly squat about evolution.

I'm not stupid. But I would not watch a youtube video and suddenly think I have outsmarted a bunch of scientists in their specialized fields.

 

[Wuwei]

Right. Being smart doesn't mean being fluent or even informed in all topics.

And these peope may be MENSA officers, but they know exactly squat about evolution.

I'm not stupid. But I would not watch a youtube video and suddenly think I have outsmarted a bunch of scientists in their specialized fields.

Yeah, a lot of scientists, , on this board graduated from University of YouTube.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah, a lot of scientists, , on this board graduated from University of YouTube.

I have quite often asked our resident youtube educated scientist to try out their acts on actual scientists.

I even graciously provide email addresses of scientists working in these fields.

Oddly enough, none of them ever accepts this challenge.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes, there are outliers in all complex sciences such as medicine, particle physics experiments, and evolution. The huge bulk of data largely form a very consistent picture of the origin of species.

It's the inconsistencies where the rubber meets the road, not the consistencies, there's no fossil evidence that any of the 40+ diversified phyla that appear in the Cambrian, actually had any ancestors whatsoever, no evidence, none, it's either inexplicably missing or they never existed.

If they never existed then something beyond or ken causes the complex animals to appear.

Creationists throw away the the efficacy of radio isotope dating, the fact the the earth is billions of years old, and not just a few thousand. Creationists assume all creatures were formed in one day. The cherry-picked outliers are seen as evidence for the bible while ignoring all the rest of the physical and biological evidence.

The term "creationism" encompasses a broad canvas, there are some who abhor intellectualism in all its form and who refuse to acknowledge rudimentary facts of nature (like radioactive decay) and who interpret scripture in a particular way. We should not all be tarred with the same brush.

If you have scientific dispute with me then fine, we can discuss, but I've made no mention of the Bible, radioactive decay or the human race behind created in a single day, challenge me on what I actually say not one what you believe I believe.

The vast majority of the seminal contributors to the scientific revolution were creationists so why make such a fuss about it?

Have you seen Stephen Meyer's book on the Cambrian? it's a truly interesting book, lots of research went into it, here's the comments about it from other scientists:

See the full list here.

Note in particular:

It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer for the study of evolution and points us in the right direction as we seek a new theory for the origin of animals.-Dr. Mark McMenamin, Paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and author of The Emergence of Animals

See that's a paleontologist saying that Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian have "failed miserably". He agrees with what I've been telling you, anyone here gonna send him an email and bring him to his senses?

So it's book about science that's respected by scientists, why not read what it has to say? Armchair evolutionists need to start acting like the educated scientifically competent people they keep claiming to be.