Response to TheoreticalBullshit on Evolution: Take Two

Believing in things that have not been shown to be ontologically possible is delusional behavior.

We lock some of those people up, after all.

God has been shown to be ontologically possible because the conclusions of cogent inductive arguments, and sound deductive arguments, have ontologically possible conclusions.

Take the Kalam Argument, for instance. Even though one of the premises is arrived at by induction, it still demonstrates that a first-cause of the universe *is* possible... and being a first-cause of the universe would entail many attributes about what that cause is.

Sorry... but God has been shown to be ontologically possible, while the "land-mammal to whale transition" has not.

Sucks to be you.


Lesson on types of possibility (from WikiPedia:Epistemic Possibility):
If you tell me "It's possible that it is raining outside"—in the sense of epistemic possibility—then that would weigh on whether or not I take the umbrella. But if you just tell me that "It's possible for it to rain outside"—in the sense of metaphysical [or ontological] possibility—then I am no better off for this bit of modal enlightenment.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• theoreticalbullshit
• evolution
• creation
• biology
• science
• god
• jesus
• intelligent
• design
• natural
• selection

[ClumsyRoot]

Your smug, slightly affected indignation is completely unfounded, because the questions you ask make it clear that you ARE uninformed.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...

[daemonowner]

actually possible? how about probable moron?

[flueedo]

Implicitly TB talks "consistency" within the scientific method. And you try to refute his reasoning with a metaphor for "consistency" outside of science.

His framework of thought is correct because it is consistent with the scientific approach to prove scientific theories. Your example of train of thought isn't applicable to science. Why isn't anything considered scientific as long as I can make up a convincing enough tale about it? Because this would be inconsistent with the Scientific Method.

[Ear4Beauty]

Some of these Evos can't stand to get a little dosage of their own castor oil.

[AquaAriaSachou]

Fine simple question for you. All religions say they are the true religion. Ok then why are there so many religions around the world? Breaking the broad question down of course: Why does it have to be Christianity or Islam or Buddism? Why is there Allah, why is there a Koran or a Bible, or Buddist verses? If god is not a product of human explaination for phenomenons that couldn't be explained in the past, (because of the lack of science) why does he exist in so many forms in different cultures?

[BigLundi]

"So you just blankedly assert that natural selection is THE mechanism" no he didn't. Your ignorance is blinding. you even quoted him saying, "Natural seletion is the EXPLANATION". It's the explanation, that fits all the facts, and don't bother with the "aliens made my neck itch" analogy, because occam's razor, as I stated before, crushes it.

Educate thineself.

[BigLundi]

As to your question, about a land mammal evolving into a whale, your question is completely nonsensical, and a DIRECT result of you being uneducated on the subject.

As to your aliens creating the scratch on your neck? It's strange how smug you are about your intelligence, yet you're completely uninformed as to what Occam's Razor is.

"you say speciation can develop into these big changes, how can you reasonably say that?" Because cumulative changes add up over time...which you granted.

[BigLundi]

"When I asserted that natural selection has a 'goal' all I was implying was that it had a 'direction'" Yes, and that's incorrect, and a result of you being uneducated. Worse than that. WILLFULLY ignorant. Because you know the books say that natural selction is not random, but you choose to ignore what that means, and slap on your own meaning to it, "Ah hah! then it's directed!" nope. False dichotomy. Non-randomness does not necessitate direction.

take the video down. You sound imbecilic.

[pragunkhera]

.... If there were hundreds, thousands of other people in random parts of the world, who had no contact with you, and they claiming the same thing, that aliens had flown to their homes and scratched them on their necks, what choice do you have but to think the story might be possible?

That's what evidence for Evolution is like. Hope you see the logic, or can point out any umm gaps in the logic.

Would appreciate a response.

[pragunkhera]

Take this video off for your own sake man. Please, realise that this is making you seem stupid.

More knowledgeable on Evolution? Do you have a PhD in biology? Cos TheoreticalBullshit said he isn't that knowledgeable BECAUSE he doesn't.

Also, aliens scratching you on the neck? Consistent with all available evidence? True, just one problem though. There IS no other evidence. Evidence on evolution though, has hundreds, thousands of instances showing consistency with each other....

[RuinSonic]

@npage85 "only irrational people believe in explanations without being shown that they are ontologically possible."

Can you explain what you mean by that? I mean God is ontologically possible in my head, but I don't think there's a way to demonstrate that it is ontologically possible. If your asking evolutionists to prove that it's ontologically possible, apart from the deductive and inductive arguments then by the same philosophy you shouldn't believe in God and you cannot prove him.

[ShamamalamaSama]

I'm a Christian and even I know that TheoreticalBullshit won this debate.