The Evolution Fraud - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15028096
Hindsite wrote:I did not say anything about the Edinburgh museum. I have never been there, but I do know that there are fake fossils created to push the evolution theory.

You'd need ALL the fossils to be fake and ALL the palaeontologists to be wrong to support the young earth notion that the links you post promote.
By Hindsite
#15028099
Besoeker2 wrote:You'd need ALL the fossils to be fake and ALL the palaeontologists to be wrong to support the young earth notion that the links you post promote.

Not really. I have already pointed out that a fossil can be formed relatively fast, so no need for a very old earth.
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15028110
Hindsite wrote:Not really. I have already pointed out that a fossil can be formed relatively fast, so no need for a very old earth.

You cited a dubious article that suits your dubious opinion. Now you are stating it as fact.
By Hindsite
#15028122
Besoeker2 wrote:You cited a dubious article that suits your dubious opinion. Now you are stating it as fact.

Whatever.
By Sivad
#15028158
blackjack21 wrote:I found these pretty interesting:





I don't think the ID inference is justified at this point because there are still some natural explanations that could narrow the probability gap and there are also more elegant metaphysical theories that don't appeal to a designer and are a better fit for what we observe, but I do agree that while the probability gap isn't exactly fatal it is a problem for the standard model and even for the EES. The inference to random mutation and natural selection as an adequate explanation for the complexity and diversity of biological life seems to me to be analogous to inferring from the fact that toddlers stack blocks that toddlers could have built the pyramids.
By Sivad
#15028164
And from what I know about the babbitts of science they don't have anything like a solid rationale for accepting the current theory. They flog neo-darwinism not because of it's empirical adequacy but because it comports with their metaphysical preference for naturalist physicalism. They're just a bunch of fucking dinks with an ideological axe to grind.
By Hindsite
#15028180
Besoeker2 wrote:Why did 99% of the species that your god supposedly created go extinct.
Including Mr Diplodocus ?
Explain that away.........

I never heard of Mr. Diplodocus. I don't know anything about your supposed 99% extinction of species, but if that is the case, perhaps they died in the worldwide flood of Noah's day.

Is there enough water for a global flood? Ask Jacques Cousteau!
User avatar
By Saeko
#15028195
Sivad wrote:And from what I know about the babbitts of science they don't have anything like a solid rationale for accepting the current theory. They flog neo-darwinism not because of it's empirical adequacy but because it comports with their metaphysical preference for naturalist physicalism. They're just a bunch of fucking dinks with an ideological axe to grind.


What sort of evidence do you need, exactly?
By Sivad
#15028203
Saeko wrote:What sort of evidence do you need, exactly?


That's a good question, I don't really know and I'm not sure that it's on the skeptic to even answer that? But maybe something like a super advanced, super sophisticated simulation based purely on the accepted mechanisms that didn't just demonstrate the principle but actually replicated the mind boggling level of complexity and diversity observed in nature. I don't know what the objections might be to something like that but if I was confronted with that kind of evidence right now I would find it extremely compelling.
User avatar
By Saeko
#15028214
Sivad wrote:That's a good question, I don't really know and I'm not sure that it's on the skeptic to even answer that? But maybe something like a super advanced, super sophisticated simulation based purely on the accepted mechanisms that didn't just demonstrate the principle but actually replicated the mind boggling level of complexity and diversity observed in nature. I don't know what the objections might be to something like that but if I was confronted with that kind of evidence right now I would find it extremely compelling.


Fair enough. What if I gave you two simulations each of which is only half as compelling as the one you propose. Do you think that together the two smaller simulations would be just as compelling as the one big one?
By Sivad
#15028222
Saeko wrote:Fair enough. What if I gave you two simulations each of which is only half as compelling as the one you propose. Do you think that together the two smaller simulations would be just as compelling as the one big one?


Even a simulation that replicated 1% of the diversity and complexity would make an honest bayesian believer out of me. That's the farce of this whole brouhaha, next to nothing has been actually demonstrated.
User avatar
By Saeko
#15028225
Sivad wrote:Even a simulation that replicated 1% of the diversity and complexity would make an honest bayesian believer out of me. That's the farce of this whole brouhaha, next to nothing has been actually demonstrated.


Well then, I must ask, what are your priors?
By Hindsite
#15028230
Saeko wrote:Well then, I must ask, what are your priors?

Asking questions does not produce any evidence. Get to it if you can.
By Hindsite
#15028233
Saeko wrote:Merely having evidence isn't enough. One must also understand it.

You don't even understand what evidence you should have?
By Sivad
#15028234
Saeko wrote:Well then, I must ask, what are your priors?


I don't really have any strong priors either way in any area relevant here. I think a naturalistic explanation is totally possible. It wouldn't conflict with my worldview or anything, I'm completely open to it. Just show me the money and I'm sold.
User avatar
By Saeko
#15028235
Hindsite wrote:You don't even understand what evidence you should have?


I understand what evidence I should have and I have it. What I'm trying to figure out is what evidence you think you should have. Please answer that question I asked you in my previous post, if you're at all interested in having this conversation.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 17
Canadian Federal Election

Scheer is a fucking AMERICAN, and shouldn't even b[…]

And he is right too, because the UK, serving as U[…]

The melting ice of Greenland will soon reveal the […]

It's interesting that the article doesn't name th[…]