Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus 282 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Satanus

  As well, when he was younger, he studied to become an anglican priest.

  S
• 

  thetrueone

  Darwin's work or thoughts as he wrote in his book is such a very little aspect of what knowledge has been accumulated since his time.

  He may have helped in the original conceptual thinking of evolution though.

  Boggles the mind, whenever the discussion of evolution or creation appears his name pops up,

  like he alone and his work is the only argument to siding evolution.

  Personally I think its the creationist's underhanded ploy, knowing Darwin is but a weak figure into this arguable debate.
• 

  bohm

  MD -- I am afraid i might get a brain injury from face-palming myself. What you agree with me is this:

  • I specify two measures of information.
  • I scold the author for not offering a definition of information [this make his article unscientific].
  • I claim information can increase by the processes of evolution. [i outline an argument for you in a later post].
  • such a claim would make no sence if i was referring to the authors undefined word "information".

  EVEN IF I GIVE YOU that my sentence could be misunderstood, you would AT MOST have prooven that given two meanings of a off-hand statement made by an non-english speaker, one that is entirely non-sensical and illogical, and another that is trivially correct, you managed to choose the nonsensical one.

  I cannot proove anything to you. your argument is based on your willingness to misunderstand what i write (or from my perspective, your inability to parse the english language), i cannot change that through reason. as such it is an argument from increduility.

  Furthermore if we look at what i wrote:

  Bohm: "...the central term in the article [information] remain undefined ... and evolution CAN create information, it is observed in the laboratory"

  you say that your claim hinge on "one of those nuances of the English language." -- its incredibly funny that you are telling me one minute you are singling me because you think i argue to much over definitions of words with other posters, and the hearth of your critisism boil down to a nuance in the english language. You even admit you are just bickering over definitions: "As for bickering over definitions, how does it feel to be on the receiving end?". way to go...well, it feels like you are an idiot for not being able to tell the difference between offering counter-points to the cosmological argument, and your own willingness to misunderstand others when it is beneficial to your own ego.

  You top it off by telling me i am just like debator and i argue like a jw.. jesus.. try to get a sence of perspective. An ofcourse you didnt want to take me up on the challenge, but i dont buy your reasons: you know you were just making a baseless accusation and i called you out on it.

  I think you are here because your pissed off because i have demonstrated certain errors in what you have written in the past year, and you want to vindicate yourself -- so you choose to base your argument on truly solid ground: Your own ability to read nonsensical meanings into what other write, and ability to bicker [you cant argue with the last part, you admitted to that yourself].

  well you win..

  i think we should agree to disagree... i dont think it is beneficial to argue with someone who are so hell-bend on misunderstanding me.

  now that we are here, what is your point about this argument? other posters perception of me? (you certainly seem to have made up your mind, and if i am as delusional as you claim i am, you can certainly not expect me to change my mind).

  Finally, and this is a serious question: are you going to continue to stalk me with the sole purpose of showing i bicker and argue like a jw and all the other stuff you threw at me a few pages back?
• 

  bohm

  To me, this speaks volumes: I have never once seen evidence been introduced that was not in favor of evolution without it turning out to be fabricated or entirely misunderstood.

  I wish more non-evolutionists here would take that lesson to heart, and try to make the discussion more evidence-based.
• 

  Mad Dawg

  I think you have palmed yourself in the face too hard. It is showing its effects.

  I didn't choose either one. I have asked you to define which one you meant. At this point, you STILL haven't defined it clearly.

  In my country, it is extremely rude to correct a native English speaker if you are a non-native English speaker. I offered the "nuance of the English language" as another effort to allow you to save face. You would rather drown than grab a life preserver.

  Any misunderstandings that I have is for no other reason than that you have not clarified your statements. I told you way back that this would be over if you simply clarified what you meant. I am not asking you to prove anything. Just clarify what you meant in that post. What is so hard about that? How do you expect to prove anything when you are not clear?

  Stalking you? Get real, this is the only thread that I have taken up with you.

  Are you God now and can read my thoughts? My reasons are as stated for not taking your stupid challenge.

  As for my motivations, you didn't (and still haven't) defined a particular word despite your penchant for demanding such of others. You have preferred to proclaim that your post was perfectly clear when it wasn't. Your just pissed that I called you on it.

  My claim is as solid as Gibralter: you won't even admit to a minor error. You and I agree to your last bullit point. My statement is that you did it anyway. Are you the Almighty Bohm that we mere mortals cannot contradict you? If you say that the sun rises in the west, then it is so because the Almighty said so? Your inability to fess up has been fascinating. Your are such an arrogant boor that you would dare question my understanding of English. I can just imagine your reaction if I were to question your comprehension of your native tongue.
• 

  bohm

  Mad Dawg -- I didn't choose either one. I have asked you to define which one you meant. At this point, you STILL haven't defined it clearly.

  defined what? oh god the definitions.. i have done nothing but clarifying myself, you have done nothing but trying harder and harder to misunderstand me. you win, i loose.

  As for my motivations, you didn't (and still haven't) defined a particular word despite your penchant for demanding such of others.

  my god. how can it not be clear by now? i must have written the words the first 10 times...

  Are you the Almighty Bohm that we mere mortals cannot contradict you? If you say that the sun rises in the west, then it is so because the Almighty said so?

  lets test it: mad dawg, i command you to have an evidence based discussion.

  our are such an arrogant boor that you would dare question my understanding of English.

  i dont dare anything, i merely point out you misunderstand me on purpose. its an argument from misunderstanding the other side -- i can just notice this is not the first time: "Evolution is rocks turning into man" -- this time you just made it very personal.

  your ability to misunderstand others stand like gibraltar indeed.
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Please copy-and-paste and provide the post number it was taken from for:

  1) Where you have clearly stated which definition of information you were using in this statement "and evolution CAN create information, it is observed in the laboratory" in post #3245.

  2) Where I said "Evolution is rocks turning into man". I am looking for the verbatim quote as you have used quotation marks.

  If you can find these quotes, I will post an honest heart-felt apology in regard to the quote you find. Otherwise, I will stand firm that my misunderstandings are due to your lack of clarity.
• 

  bohm

  1) we have been over this again and again... like you agreed before, i introduced to measures of information in just the preceeding post. That you choose to read a nonsensical meaning out of my post reflect your desire to misunderstand me. as i have said again and again.

  2) please forgive me for the misquote -- you did not utter that exact statement, and i am sure it does not capture the depths of your evoluionary definition; Pardon me, my bad, i was merely referring to a different thread, you wrote: "I agree. And if someone wants to claim that the universe is a cosmic burp of nothingness, or that we evolved from rocks, ... [next post] The terms I used are accurate. It is not my fault that, when the veneer is stripped away, what is left is patently absurd. Intellectually dishohest?"
• 

  bohm

  md: i have desided you are not going to be persuaded by rational arguments on this topic. i do not wish to discuss you point (1) any further since i believe you base your argument on your ability to misunderstand me.
• 

  Mad Dawg

  In other words you can't do it.

  1) I know full well that if you could post where you clearly stated your definition of "information", you would have done it post-haste just to shove it in my face. Even at this time, you still have not clarified it. Is it Kolmogorov? Shannon? Entropy? What? Which one am I to pick? Why do I bear the burden of trying to figure out what you mean if you are too lazy, arrogant, whatever to simply state it?

  2) If you can't tell that I was not defining evolution, you have no business arguing in English.

  Maybe, someday, Dogbert will finally excorcise the demons of stupidity from your posts. It is notable that Dogbert only shows up to excorcise stupidity from your posts - and no one else's.