felltoearth wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

laklak wrote:How Darwin thought life originated has no bearing on evolutionary theory, not even on his original theory of natural selection. Abiogenesis =/= evolution.

Yep, there’s that too. Strike two on that post.

I find this deeply amusing because Richard Dawkins has quite often claimed that "Darwinism explains life". In this video he claims Darwin blew away theistic notions about a creator of life (7:50): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBDUPAgy5zk&t=6s
But without an origin to life, there can be no diversity of life.

Amused by strike three?

Where does Dawkins say that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection involves how life started on earth?

Oh, that’s right, he didn’t.

You’re out.

He says it in the video and below:

The Darwinian theory is in principle capable of explaining life. No other theory that has ever been suggested is in principle capable of explaining life. I shall demonstrate this by discussing all known rival theories, not the evidence for or against them, but their adequacy, in principle, as explanations for life

Page 288, of the BW: https://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_B ... hmaker.pdf

I’ll be counting my goats carefully after driving them across the bridge.

RS

The_Piper wrote:Plus people who accept the default, factual concept of evolution by natural section don't need an "ist". there's no evolutionism. It's not about faith or following any common life mantra, strategy, or anything with others. It's just accepting reality as it clearly is.

"It is possible to interpret the words of Darwin and many other evolutionists as gradualist in intent, but it then becomes important to realize that the word gradualist can be interpreted in different ways to mean different things."

Page 224 of the BW: https://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_B ... hmaker.pdf

Wortfish wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

felltoearth wrote:
Yep, there’s that too. Strike two on that post.

I find this deeply amusing because Richard Dawkins has quite often claimed that "Darwinism explains life". In this video he claims Darwin blew away theistic notions about a creator of life (7:50): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBDUPAgy5zk&t=6s
But without an origin to life, there can be no diversity of life.

Amused by strike three?

Where does Dawkins say that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection involves how life started on earth?

Oh, that’s right, he didn’t.

You’re out.

He says it in the video and below:

The Darwinian theory is in principle capable of explaining life. No other theory that has ever been suggested is in principle capable of explaining life. I shall demonstrate this by discussing all known rival theories, not the evidence for or against them, but their adequacy, in principle, as explanations for life

Page 288, of the BW: https://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_B ... hmaker.pdf

If you actually paid attention to what people are telling you here you would realize why you are reading this quite incorrectly. Really you are coming off here are ignorant and foolish.

Wortfish wrote:If you allow for some divine intervention at one instance, then this opens up intervention more broadly.

Who's allowing for divine intervention in any case? You are, my lad. There are some folks who don't rule it out and who don't allow for it, but they're more or less sitting on the fence. They lack belief in your creator god because you haven't given them any reason to believe in it. They don't rule it out, and they don't allow for it. Is there a middle ground?

Your creator god is useful for precisely two cases. In one case, the creator god creates the universe and stops intervening. In the case of a creator god that creates life, the creator god intervenes to create the universe and fucks off for 9 billion years before intervening again to create life, and then fucks off a second time, never to be heard from again, except in the drivel of creationists. This isn't a very compelling creator god, and so I don't allow for it. There must be something more about this creator god you're not telling us. I'm sure you have some very good reasons for keeping mum.

Wortfish wrote:Tell me what is so wrong about exploring creationism and ID, critically, within the classroom?

See above, Wortfish. You don't get to say there's anything right about exploring creationism in the classroom until you make a better case for this creator god that intervenes randomly and mostly just fucks off somewhere so that creationist idiots can believe in its existence, and some skeptics can lack belief therein. Your creator god was invented thousands of years ago by prescientific people fulliy ignorant of the scale of the cosmos and who lacked even a microbial theory of disease and the biochemistry that explains how that works. Their creator god was invented, in light of that, to answer some pretty stupid questions, and you appear to have delved even deeper into that prodigious amount of ignorance.

[To my more skeptical colleagues: Note that Wortfish does not respond to this. He can't. Even if he replies, which is unlikely, he won't be responding.]

So the quote mined from The Blind Watchmaker is in a chapter about the diversity of life on earth and the role of evolution by natural selection in bringing it about. It's not about how evolution kickstarted life.

In fact, we have this.



Another swing and a miss wortfish.

Batter batter batter batter Saaaawiiiing, batter!

Wortfish wrote:
Tell me what is so wrong about exploring creationism and ID, critically, within the classroom?

for the same reason you don't explore heroine and crack in the classroom ...it's toxic shit

There is one way intelligent design can be explored in the classroom, if you count genetic manipulation or selective breeding as intelligent design. It has nothing to do with abiogenesis, but it is an intelligence (human) designing life by manipulation and intervention. It is also 100% scientific, verifiable, falsifiable, repeatable etc.

I doubt if any religions are proposing a god who does much of that though, except in the very distant past, like the supposed post-flood age.

zulumoose wrote:There is one way intelligent design can be explored in the classroom...

No, one has to keep straight the difference between works of Man and works of God, which is a prerequisite for arguing theology on the internet. You know that ID or creationism is only used to try to answer questions science has not answered. God of the gaps, which you don't accept, do you?

ID would be great, if any of the supposed designs even seemed intelligent, let alone demonstrated intelligence, as opposed to the intelligence required to perceive design. The latter kind of intelligence is also used to critique literary characters. Funny, that. The usual example cited for Stupid Design is locating the funhouse near the sewage disposal system. That never comes up in the classroom. One ID proponent you never hear from is a (male) creationist with a prostate problem.

All of a sudden, it's no longer perceiving the hand of the Divine Urologist, but "God works in mysterious ways". This is a problem for ID, because ID doesn't explain the prostate problem.

As usual, the idiocy of theology is aimed at demonstrating the questionable intelligence of the theologist. You don't even have to believe in God to practice theology, but the practice is evidence of dumbassitude.

The Creationist is trying to sell you the Creator God, but you've already ruled that one out, so there's no need to entertain the argument, here, because there's nobody here dumb enough to buy it. Right? No, not really. Twitching erratically whenever a creationist shows up is not the solution.

Wortfish wrote:
Tell me what is so wrong about exploring creationism and ID, critically, within the classroom?

Because it's never done critically. Seriously, you have proven with every single post of yours on this forum that you have no idea what that word means. You're not capable of critical thinking. ID and creationism are the result of the a complete lack of critical thinking. It's called endocrination.

Don't talk about things you don't understand.

aban57 wrote:

Wortfish wrote:
Tell me what is so wrong about exploring creationism and ID, critically, within the classroom?

Because it's never done critically. Seriously, you have proven with every single post of yours on this forum that you have no idea what that word means. You're not capable of critical thinking. ID and creationism are the result of the a complete lack of critical thinking.

How would we evaluate the idea critically? We can't. The problem arises precisely because we don't specify what it means to evaluate an idea critically. If you just mean, "Is there any evidence", it all falls into a pit holding the evidence you will allow. Wortfish is the one creating the problem of "exploring an idea critically", but we never discover what that entails. This is what it means to be driven by the priorities of theists, who are handing you the issue of what it means to evaluate critically. If you can't say what that entails, then you should shut up. Especially if what it entails is discussing the evidence for something for which you should not expect to receive evidence.

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Wortfish wrote:
Tell me what is so wrong about exploring creationism and ID, critically, within the classroom?

Because it's never done critically. Seriously, you have proven with every single post of yours on this forum that you have no idea what that word means. You're not capable of critical thinking. ID and creationism are the result of the a complete lack of critical thinking.

How would we evaluate the idea critically? We can't. The problem arises precisely because we don't specify what it means to evaluate an idea critically. If you just mean, "Is there any evidence", it all falls into a pit holding the evidence you will allow. Wortfish is the one creating the problem of "exploring an idea critically", but we never discover what that entails. This is what it means to be driven by the priorities of theists, who are handing you the issue of what it means to evaluate critically.

Bullshit.
Definition of critical thinking, from a simple google search :

the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

There is no analysis in ID. Even less objective. There is just an idea pushed by a religious belief, regardless of facts and evidence. In fact, there is a distinctive ignorance of facts that disprove this idea. This is the opposite of critical thinking.
ETA : also, the judgement exists before the "objective analysis", and is never changed when new information comes in.

aban57 wrote:Bullshit.
Definition of critical thinking, from a simple google search :

the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

There is no analysis in ID. Even less objective. There is just an idea pushed by a religious belief, regardless of facts and evidence. In fact, there is a distinctive ignorance of facts that disprove this idea. This is the opposite of critical thinking.

The problem isn't that the creationist can't deliver the evidence; the problem is that you have not yet specified what evidence you would accept. But as soon as you try to do that, you'll see that you're asking the impossible of the creationist. Your demand is disingenuous.

If you understand why you have difficulty specifying what evidence you would accept, then you'll start to understand why demaning a creationist supply you with evidence is just extemporizing. It's easy to ask somebody for evidence when you don't specify what evidence you would accept.

The practice of demanding evidence of theists has failed over and over. Don't conclude that the failure is on their part, since you never say what constitutes adequate evidence.

Here: consider what Sean Carroll does to decide whether God is a theory or not:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI

The God that Wortfish is talking about is the creator god, and is not one for which you're seeking evidence. You already regard this entity as ridiculous. Unless you don't.

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:[
Bullshit.
Definition of critical thinking, from a simple google search :

the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

There is no analysis in ID. Even less objective. There is just an idea pushed by a religious belief, regardless of facts and evidence. In fact, there is a distinctive ignorance of facts that disprove this idea. This is the opposite of critical thinking.

The problem isn't that the creationist can't deliver the evidence; the problem is that you have not yet specified what evidence you would accept. But as soon as you try to do that, you'll see that you're asking the impossible of the creationist. Your demand is disingenuous.

That's the most stupid comment I've seen in a while. Of course they can't deliver evidence, as there is none for what they claim.
And I don't need to specify what kind of evidence I would accept. This very idea is stupid. I would accept any evidence that proves any of their claim. If there were physical evidence of the flood, like sediments, fossils or anything, I would accept it, and then I would accept their idea. That's what we call critical thinking.
What is disingenuous here, is to pretend that supernatural claims are impossible to be proven wrong, playing right in their disingenuous usual discourse. Making on purpose unprovable claims, and then claim they're true because they can't be proven wrong.

aban57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:[
Bullshit.
Definition of critical thinking, from a simple google search :

the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

There is no analysis in ID. Even less objective. There is just an idea pushed by a religious belief, regardless of facts and evidence. In fact, there is a distinctive ignorance of facts that disprove this idea. This is the opposite of critical thinking.

The problem isn't that the creationist can't deliver the evidence; the problem is that you have not yet specified what evidence you would accept. But as soon as you try to do that, you'll see that you're asking the impossible of the creationist. Your demand is disingenuous.

That's the most stupid comment I've seen in a while. Of course they can't deliver evidence, as there is none for what they claim.
And I don't need to specify what kind of evidence I would accept. This very idea is stupid. I would accept any evidence that proves any of their claim. If there were physical evidence of the flood, like sediments, fossils or anything, I would accept it, and then I would accept their idea. That's what we call critical thinking.
What is disingenuous here, is to pretend that supernatural claims are impossible to be proven wrong, playing right in their disingenuous usual discourse. Making on purpose unprovable claims, and then claim they're true because they can't be proven wrong.

You don't understand specification. Why do you think those specifics have anything to do with any god except one you would accept? If you want to say that this is the popular conception, what does that have to do with God's existence? You're just bluntly asserting no evidence is possible, but you don't say how you know this, or that the popular formulation is wrong because it's popular.

What is disingenuous here, is to pretend that supernatural claims are impossible to be proven wrong, playing right in their disingenuous usual discourse.

Well, great. You can match the theist, assertion for assertion, including having only a tautological definition of 'supernatural' at your disposal. It's no wonder that you'll be countering theist responses to this drivel til the cows come home.

Theist: This is evidence.
You: It isn't, either
Theist: Is, too.
You: Is not.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

aban57 wrote:And I don't need to specify what kind of evidence I would accept.

At that point, the theist is going to tell you to fuck right the fuck off, and you will have failed to challenge the theist. All you will have done is to say (one more time) why you don't believe in God.

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

aban57 wrote:[
Bullshit.
Definition of critical thinking, from a simple google search :

There is no analysis in ID. Even less objective. There is just an idea pushed by a religious belief, regardless of facts and evidence. In fact, there is a distinctive ignorance of facts that disprove this idea. This is the opposite of critical thinking.

The problem isn't that the creationist can't deliver the evidence; the problem is that you have not yet specified what evidence you would accept. But as soon as you try to do that, you'll see that you're asking the impossible of the creationist. Your demand is disingenuous.

That's the most stupid comment I've seen in a while. Of course they can't deliver evidence, as there is none for what they claim.
And I don't need to specify what kind of evidence I would accept. This very idea is stupid. I would accept any evidence that proves any of their claim. If there were physical evidence of the flood, like sediments, fossils or anything, I would accept it, and then I would accept their idea. That's what we call critical thinking.
What is disingenuous here, is to pretend that supernatural claims are impossible to be proven wrong, playing right in their disingenuous usual discourse. Making on purpose unprovable claims, and then claim they're true because they can't be proven wrong.

You don't understand specification. Why do you think those specifics have anything to do with any god except one you would accept? If you want to say that this is the popular conception, what does that have to do with God's existence? You're just bluntly asserting no evidence is possible, but you don't say how you know this.

Word salad, word salad, and more word salad. And lies. And strawmen. As usual. I never claimed no evidence is possible, you did. In fact, I specifically said I would accept any evidence that would prove any theist claim. So take your lie back.
I don't care about any specification of any god from any religion. What I care about is this little thing called "reality". Maybe you're heard of it. "Real" things interact with our "real" world in a measurable, observable fashion. No specifics here.
If any theist on the planet asserts anything about a god, or anything else really, then they'll have to back their claim with evidence. Any evidence will do.
If you go see the police and accuse someone about something, you'll have to provide evidence for your accusation. Or the police will try and find some. Why would it be different with any other claim, religious or not ?

aban57 wrote:I never claimed no evidence is possible, you did.

You just said you don't have to specify the kind of evidence you'd accept. Well, you can go round forever on that one. The theist knows just as well as I do that your request is disingenuous. You know no evidence is forthcoming. Or do you?

aban57 wrote:Any evidence will do.

You really don't understand specification, do you? You're welcome to play patty-cake with the theist for as long as you'd like. Keep in mind that life is short.

aban57 wrote:What I care about is this little thing called "reality". Maybe you're heard of it. "Real" things interact with our "real" world in a measurable, observable fashion.

As I say, you'll be waiting until the cows come home. Stop waiting and asking theists for evidence. You already acknowledge that god is not real. Or do you?

Is your root problem really that you understand theist claims cannot be proven wrong? That's what you get by asking for proof. You get to play patty-cake forever waiting for proof.