As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution

[AV1611VET]

Common as dirt, a person learns a few "philosophical" sayings, and tosses in some God to make an unbeatable combo.

A few even try to guild the Lilly with the pretense of being a " scientist".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not defining it, I'm giving it a synonym.

You still lose. You have still shot yourself in the foot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? I hope your day job is not piloting commercial aircraft, or driving a bus, or parking cars, or ...

Oh my! Do you have trouble understanding English? A "pilot" that thinks that pulling back on the stick will send a plane down is "correct' but not in the sense that the passengers would enjoy. You "know" things that are demonstrably false. It would be wise to learn the difference between knowing and believing.

Science knowledge does not circumscribe even a blade of grass and yet claims to know how man came into existence.

Now you are using English in a nonsensical fashion. I understand. Reality is scary. Fantasy is much more comforting. But the fact is that you are a product of evolution and science can explain how we know this.

 

[Bradskii]

Circumscribe a blade of grass?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Circumscribe a blade of grass?

Like I said. Reality is scary. Gibberish is the result sometimes.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The philosopher who cannot get past the idea that there might be questions about mutual acceptance of their postulates, axioms, dare I say assumptions.

I suspect that was just a red-herring to continue the ego-boosting run-around. In philosophical discussions, you define your terms at the outset then get on with it. First-principles are simply axioms or a-priori terms that vary by philosopher and domain.

Philosophers generally like to argue their case; he's no philosopher.

 

[VirOptimus]

I suspect that was just a red-herring to continue the ego-boosting run-around. In philosophical discussions, you define your terms at the outset then get on with it. First-principles are simply axioms or a-priori terms that vary by philosopher and domain.

He is equally ignorant in science and philosophy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you asking because you have a sincere interest or is this just an attempt at a game of "gotcha!" whack-a-mole?

At any rate, I haven't specifically researched that subject, though I suspect if you want to read up on subjects like phototransduction, the visual cortex and neurological processing of visual stimuli, you can probably find more than a few things to tickle your fancy.

It's the popular example of qualia, what it is subjectively like to have a sensory experience - part of the 'hard problem' of consciousness, something that objective science can't directly explain because subjective experience is not accessible. Mind-body dualists think it proves something.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

5) When the evolutionary scientist cannot provide natural explanations for observed effects, he often masks his ignorance with flowery language, eg., “order emerges from the interactions of multiple subsystems as a result of their intrinsic properties, without external guidance …”. Rather than assign the observed effect to a super-natural or unnatural cause the scientist presumes a natural cause without identifying it.

Not knowing where you mined this quote, I will just assume that you don't understand it nor why the author wrote that.

You're correct, he didn't understand it. It's from my post #814 in the 'What about the Differences between Chimps and Humans?' thread.

He asked about emergence, gave an incorrect description of it, so I gave him a concise definition with examples, and a reference to the Wikipedia article:

What does "undirected emergent order" mean?

It means order emerging from the interactions of multiple subsystems as a result of their intrinsic properties, without external guidance or direction. Popular examples are starling murmurations or schools of fish. The patterns generated by cellular automata like Game of Life, or fractals like the Mandelbrot Set are also examples.

"Emergent" properties are those that have no observable cause. "Emergent" implies the whole is somehow greater than its parts. Philosophically, claiming an "emergent" property violates First Principles, ie., Principle of Sufficient Reason. How does adding the modifier "undirected" clarify the "emergent" assumption? "Emergent", like "random", admits of ignorance.

Not really. Emergent properties may not be predictable from those of the subsystems, but they have observable causes (the interactions of the subsystems). The idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts is rather ambiguous - it's more the case that the behaviour of the whole is quite different from that of its parts. See Emergence.

There's no conflict with the Principle of Sufficient Reason, emergence is inherently deterministic.

The modifier 'undirected' is to distinguish the self-organisation I'm describing from the directed form you suggested in #753. As I said, the idea of self-organisation carries the implication of being the result of intrinsic rather than extrinsic influence.

Presumably, he didn't read the referenced article, or if he did, he didn't understand that either.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Count me among those who noticed early.

You have to give the drongo a fair suck of the pineapple

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The OP limits the debate to the evolution of man. For discussion purposes, I allow that evolution is possible for bugs (colloquial sense) to primates.

The OP states that creation is superior to evolution and yet you do not provide any evidence or facts for that claim to be correct.

 

[Bradskii]

You have to give the drongo a fair suck of the pineapple

Fair dinkum!

 

[o_mlly]

It's just so much more peaceful now.

It's just so much more peaceful now

I know, I know ... you're all upset. Evo's become quite emotional when anyone reveals that their evolution theory has no clothes.

Rather than deal with the theory's shortcomings, their SOP is to attack the messenger, try to destroy a reputation rather than refute an argument. We've seen this tactic before. Doubtless, we'll see it again.

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

https://phys.org/news/2006-06-scientists-oppose-darwin-theory.html

Over 1,000 PhD Scientists Sign Petition Dissenting From Darwin's Theory of Evolution | Christians for Truth

Are there Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution and Proponents of Intelligent Design? | Christian Research Institute

The Vanishing Case for Evolution

Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists

After their "group hug" celebrating another supposed successful defense of their beloved theory, they return to bury their heads back in the safe sand of ignoring the obvious.

 

[VirOptimus]

View attachment 301170
It's just so much more peaceful now

I know, I know ... you're all upset. Evo's become quite emotional when anyone reveals that their evolution theory has no clothes.

Rather than deal with the theory's shortcomings, their SOP is to attack the messenger, try to destroy a reputation rather than refute an argument. We've seen this tactic before. Doubtless, we'll see it again.

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

https://phys.org/news/2006-06-scientists-oppose-darwin-theory.html

Over 1,000 PhD Scientists Sign Petition Dissenting From Darwin's Theory of Evolution | Christians for Truth

Are there Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution and Proponents of Intelligent Design? | Christian Research Institute

The Vanishing Case for Evolution

Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists

After their "group hug" celebrating another supposed successful defense of their beloved theory, they return to bury their heads back in the safe sand of ignoring the obvious.

Want to attack the ToE, write an article for peer-review.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

View attachment 301170
It's just so much more peaceful now

I know, I know ... you're all upset. Evo's become quite emotional when anyone reveals that their evolution theory has no clothes.

Rather than deal with the theory's shortcomings, their SOP is to attack the messenger, try to destroy a reputation rather than refute an argument. We've seen this tactic before. Doubtless, we'll see it again.

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

https://phys.org/news/2006-06-scientists-oppose-darwin-theory.html

Over 1,000 PhD Scientists Sign Petition Dissenting From Darwin's Theory of Evolution | Christians for Truth

Are there Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution and Proponents of Intelligent Design? | Christian Research Institute

The Vanishing Case for Evolution

Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists

After their "group hug" celebrating another supposed successful defense of their beloved theory, they return to bury their heads back in the safe sand of ignoring the obvious.

Did you read any of those articles? If so, please quote the one you think supports the argument you were making.

I'll give myself an "optimistic" rating while I wait for you not to provide a relevant quotation.

 

[Astrid]

Did you read any of those articles? If so, please quote the one you think supports the argument you were making.

I'll give myself an "optimistic" rating while I wait for you not to provide a relevant quotation.

You just HAVE to feed trolls?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

View attachment 301170
It's just so much more peaceful now

I know, I know ... you're all upset. Evo's become quite emotional when anyone reveals that their evolution theory has no clothes.

Rather than deal with the theory's shortcomings, their SOP is to attack the messenger, try to destroy a reputation rather than refute an argument. We've seen this tactic before. Doubtless, we'll see it again.

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

https://phys.org/news/2006-06-scientists-oppose-darwin-theory.html

Over 1,000 PhD Scientists Sign Petition Dissenting From Darwin's Theory of Evolution | Christians for Truth

Are there Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution and Proponents of Intelligent Design? | Christian Research Institute

The Vanishing Case for Evolution

Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists

After their "group hug" celebrating another supposed successful defense of their beloved theory, they return to bury their heads back in the safe sand of ignoring the obvious.

Well you're clearly not here to have any actual meaningful discussion then, are you?

 

[AV1611VET]

The OP states that creation is superior to evolution and yet you do not provide any evidence or facts for that claim to be correct.

Nature makes mistakes; our Creator didn't.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You just HAVE to feed trolls?

Sorry, I didn't realise you'd called dibs on it

 

[AV1611VET]

It's just so much more peaceful now.

Is that a picture of geologists or archaeologists looking for evidence of evolution?