Why Would An Agnostic Doubt the Theory of Evolution

[Zosimus]

We see matter getting sucked up, that happens. It doesn't really matter what is doing it in the context of the discussion, the fact that it happens makes the universe less orderly than you suggest.

Even if matter were getting sucked up (and it is not) that would not show that the universe was less orderly as the matter is presumed to be sucked up in an orderly fashion. At any rate, sucking up of matter is impossible as it violates the quantum no-deleting theorem. As you can see at Black hole information paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia quantum physics both predicts black holes and predicts that black holes cannot exist. When a philosophy, theology, or science contradicts itself then that belief system is invalid.

 

[Zosimus]

Here is another one for you, from the days of Isaac Newton.

If gravity is true, then Mercury should not have a precession in its orbit.

Mercury's orbit does have a precession.

Therefore, gravity is false.

Do you agree with that or not?

Yes, that's exactly right. The anomalous precession of the planet Mercury falsifies Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Even if matter were getting sucked up (and it is not) that would not show that the universe was less orderly as the matter is presumed to be sucked up in an orderly fashion. At any rate, sucking up of matter is impossible as it violates the quantum no-deleting theorem. As you can see at Black hole information paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia quantum physics both predicts black holes and predicts that black holes cannot exist. When a philosophy, theology, or science contradicts itself then that belief system is invalid.

That paradox has already been dealt with. Also, matter is not sucked up evenly or in an orderly fashion at all.

 

[Loudmouth]

Even if matter were getting sucked up (and it is not) that would not show that the universe was less orderly as the matter is presumed to be sucked up in an orderly fashion. At any rate, sucking up of matter is impossible as it violates the quantum no-deleting theorem. As you can see at Black hole information paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia quantum physics both predicts black holes and predicts that black holes cannot exist. When a philosophy, theology, or science contradicts itself then that belief system is invalid.

We observe that the stars in the center of our galaxy orbit extremely quickly around a single point. Using those orbits, we can calculate the amount of mass at that central point. It happens to be around 4 million solar masses, or 4 million times more massive that our own Sun. That point isn't producing any light. It's black.

Seems to me that all of the evidence is consistent with a black hole.

UCLA GCG data for stars around the Supermassive Black Hole at the Center of the Milky Way

 

[Atheos canadensis]

On the contrary, the thought that my wife might be a doppelganger never even occurred to me. Now I'm hoping that she is one.

I never hear footsteps in my house. Of course, I'm almost never there.

You think that every time I have a headache I should go to the hospital to ensure that it's not an aneurysm. Why should I think the hospital could help me? Why should I think that I might not die before my six hour wait was up? Why should I think that they would even see me? Might they not just take one look at me and say, "Uh-huh... headache... Take two of these and call me in the morning."

Please, think before you type. Thanks.

Your evasiveness is transparent. I don't think you should go to the hospital with every headache for the same reason you don't; aneurysm are rare. Now please provide a direct answer rather than trying to weasel around the point. Why do you assume that you headache is just a headache and not an impending aneurysm? Why, if you happen to be in your house, do you assume that the footsteps you hear are your wife's and not an intruder's? Why do you assume that there is no invisible truck coming at you? For several posts you have transparently avoided giving direct answers to the straightforward questions I have posed. Your unwillingness to directly answer these questions indicates that you know I'm right: you are instinctively using parsimony all the time.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, that's exactly right. The anomalous precession of the planet Mercury falsifies Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation.

It falsifies gravity, doesn't it?

If not, does that mean that gravity is unfalsifiable?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yep, the very pattern of shared and derived features that we observe evolutionary mechanisms producing in modern populations.



And once again, you reject the scientific method when it produces conclusions you don't like.

Good luck with that.

You do know that the nested hierarchy was developed prior to the theory of evolution..right?

 

[HitchSlap]

You do know that the nested hierarchy was developed prior to the theory of evolution..right?

You mean someone used a falsifiable method to make a prediction?

Science works!!!

Now, about that falsifiable objective evidence for god... where you at with that? Were you planning on getting back to us, or do you accept my claim of "Bobdidit" to be as valid as your "Goddidit?"

 

[Smidlee]

Yep, just like the pig in this cloud is an illusion:

I would say that the cloud is not a pig. What about you?

I didn't see a pig in the cloud. By definition a cloud is not a pig.

What do you mean?

The cloud has every indication that it was designed. How do you explain the appearance of design in that cloud?

Wow. Even as a child I realize cloud shapes are pretty random.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You mean someone used a falsifiable method to make a prediction?

Science works!!!

What?

Now, about that falsifiable objective evidence for god... where you at with that? Were you planning on getting back to us, or do you accept my claim of "Bobdidit" to be as valid as your "Goddidit?"

When you can prove that Bob has claims in a book or document made prior to the discovery of the claims let me know.

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't see a pig in the cloud. By definition a cloud is not a pig.

So you refuse to see the design in the cloud?

 

[Loudmouth]

You do know that the nested hierarchy was developed prior to the theory of evolution..right?

How could they have observed fossils that hadn't been discovered yet?

The ultimate test of the theory is new fossils. The very next rock could contain that mammal-bird transitional that would falsify the theory. And yet, every single fossil fits the nested hierarchy predicted by the theory of evolution.

Not only that, we observe living populations in modern times producing nested hierarchies due to the mechanisms of evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

When you can prove that Bob has claims in a book or document made prior to the discovery of the claims let me know.

You mean how Darwin predicted that we would find whale transitionals, hominid transitionals, reptile to mammal transitionals, etc.?

 

[HitchSlap]

What?


When you can prove that Bob has claims in a book or document made prior to the discovery of the claims let me know.

According your logic, one claim is as good as another, as long as you believe the evidence can be interpreted to support your claim. I mean right?


It kills you to realize I have as much evidence for Bob creating the world as you do for your Christian god.

 

[Smidlee]

A nested hierarchy is not circular reasoning. It is easily testable.

Why would life fall into a nested hierarchy if it was designed?

Circular reasoning is stating the nested hierarchy was the result of evolution then turn around and use the nested hierarchy as evidence for evolution. Evolution could still be true even without a nested hierarchy as being truly random.

So you refuse to see the design in the cloud?

People do not need clouds for them to see images. Art is evidence of that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Circular reasoning is stating the nested hierarchy was the result of evolution then turn around and use the nested hierarchy as evidence for evolution.

We OBSERVE that modern populations produce nested hierarchies due to evolutionary mechanisms. That is not circular reasoning.

If the same mechanisms were acting in the past, then fossils should also fall into the same nested hierarchy.

They do.

Finding a bird-mammal transitional fossil would disprove evolution, so it is not circular and easily falsifiable.

Now please tell us why intelligent design would produce a nested hierarchy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How could they have observed fossils that hadn't been discovered yet?

There was a good amount of fossil evidence. However, the nested hierarchy was created prior to Darwin.

Classification

The ultimate test of the theory is new fossils. The very next rock could contain that mammal-bird transitional that would falsify the theory. And yet, every single fossil fits the nested hierarchy predicted by the theory of evolution.

The geological column was already determined by then. So it was not predictive but was established for the most part.

Not only that, we observe living populations in modern times producing nested hierarchies due to the mechanisms of evolution.

Not the same as the past.

 

[Smidlee]

We OBSERVE that modern populations produce nested hierarchies due to evolutionary mechanisms. That is not circular reasoning.

If the same mechanisms were acting in the past, then fossils should also fall into the same nested hierarchy.

They do.

Finding a bird-mammal transitional fossil would disprove evolution, so it is not circular and easily falsifiable.

Now please tell us why intelligent design would produce a nested hierarchy.

Since boobs are not fossilize how would we find a bird with boobs?
What if nested hierarchies are nothing but an illusion as your pig in the cloud.

 

[Oncedeceived]

According your logic, one claim is as good as another, as long as you believe the evidence can be interpreted to support your claim. I mean right?

If there are claims made prior to discoveries that confirm those claims one would realize if they were not personally biased against them that they were supportive evidence of the one making the claim.

It kills you to realize I have as much evidence for Bob creating the world as you do for your Christian god.

I haven't seen any claims of Bob that were made prior to the discover of those claims. So no Bob has no evidence to support his creation of the world.

 

[HitchSlap]

If there are claims made prior to discoveries that confirm those claims one would realize if they were not personally biased against them that they were supportive evidence of the one making the claim.




I haven't seen any claims of Bob that were made prior to the discover of those claims. So no Bob has no evidence to support his creation of the world.

Bob said he did it. Why should I disbelieve him? I mean, he's a nice, hard working guy and I've never known him to lie. Bob says it, and that settles it.

Bobdidit.