This discussion took placed due to the video Class is in Session: Free Education for Aron Ra and Dr. Dan Stern Cardinale – Y Chromosome Noah.
I, Ken Ammi, commented
You should have had them holding up Darwin’s corpse (metaphorically, his dead theory). It’s simple: on an Atheistic-Evolutionary view, there’s no universal imperative for accidentally existing apes to believe in the Atheistic-Evolutionary view and so, nor that we’re accidentally existing apes. It’s utterly self defeating. This is the sort of thing I’ve been wanting to do a show with you about, Donny.
Tony Atkinson replied
Firstly , evolution is not atheistic. It makes no claims about whether a god exists .
Secondly , nobody disagrees that there’s no “universal imperative “ to accept evolution . I’m not sure why you think this defeats whether evolution is true or not .
Professor Neturman chimed in with
Your rambling doesn’t fit the Creationistic Worldview of Creationists discoveries in the fields of science. Ironically Creationists can’t even argue as a whole yet make claims of superior knowledge. Is this why they don’t believe in using the concensus of evidence?
Ken Ammi
Perhaps “evolution is not atheistic” but I specifically referred to “an Atheistic-Evolutionary view.”
“nobody disagrees that there’s no ‘universal imperative ‘” is like a triple negative. You seem to imply that everyone agrees that there’s no universal imperative to accept evolution which means you agree with me.
I stated nothing about whether evolution is true or not (first, we’d have to define “evolution”) but only that if Atheistic-Evolution is true then there’d be no universal imperative to believe that it’s true.
Tony Atkinson
the triple negative thing . Yep. Poorly worded .
To be clear . I don’t see any reason why there would be a universal imperative to “believe “ anything .
Whether evolution is true or not is unrelated to whether any one believes it. Scientists would argue that they don’t care whether it’s true or not . They just accept that evolution is the current best model that explains why and how life diversified and produces novel predictions that can be tested . If it fails to make predictions or its predictions are falsified then its discarded as a model
Ken Ammi
Interestingly, going against the consensus is what has led to the greatest scientists making the greatest scientific discoveries.
Professor Neturman
I’ve been following science for over 50 years. Someone like yourself should probably just listen more and talk a lot less
Ken Ammi
Indeed, on Atheism there’s no universal imperative to believe or disbelieve anything: which brings the Atheist missionaries’ endeavors to a full and grinding halt.
There’s no use pondering “Whether evolution is true or not” until we defined “evolution.”
“evolution is the current…model” is interesting since biology is a science but evolution is a worldview philosophy.
Basically, every generation since the late 1800s has been told that “evolution” is a fact due to thus and such. Then those things get discredited. The next generation is told “evolution” is a fact due to this and that. Then those things get discredited. The next generation is told “evolution” is a fact due to what have you. Then, you guessed it.
Tony Atkinson
none of that made sense . It’s the creationists that have the problem defining evolution because (as you have demonstrated ) you don’t know what it is .
Here’s a challenge :
correctly define “evolution” in a couple of short sentences and then give me testable evidence why it isn’t happening. Saying God did it isn’t testable evidence.
Ken Ammi
So, I take it that you’re saying you’ll run away from issues that are inconvenient to your worldview and continue on as if you didn’t hit an impenetrable brick wall.
Going back to the issue: what, on your worldview, is the universal imperative for an accidentally existing ape to provide testable evidence?
Saying time did it, matter did it, nothing did it, chance did it isn’t testable evidence.
Ken Ammi
Why, on your worldview?
Ken Ammi
Do you treat people like garbage about any other “Scientific Theory” or have you turned “evolution” into your worldview philosophy?
FYI: evolution is a belief system based on faith in accident stolen mythology.
Professor Neturman
I go by the verifiable scientific evidence. Can you possibly form a clear and intelligent question if you choose to engage with me
Ken Ammi
Well said, it seems that you finally realize that your worldview has left you with nothing but utter subjectivism, “I go by” as a personal preference du jour (based on hidden assumptions).
So, the “clear and intelligent question” is why, on your worldview, should one accidentally existing ape (me) adhere to the “I go by” subjectivism a personal preference du jour (based on hidden assumptions) of another accidentally existing ape (you)?
Tony Atkinson
your question doesn’t make sense . What do you mean by “universal imperative “ ?
Like I said , there’s no imperative for humans to explain evolution . It occurs whether we understand it or not
Ken Ammi
Please tell me you’re joking so I can tell you it’s not funny.
Here’s what I’ve written, “on an Atheistic-Evolutionary view, there’s no universal imperative for accidentally existing apes to believe in the Atheistic-Evolutionary view…You seem to imply that everyone agrees that there’s no universal imperative to accept evolution…I stated nothing about whether evolution is true or not (first, we’d have to define “evolution”) but only that if Atheistic-Evolution is true then there’d be no universal imperative to believe that it’s true…on Atheism there’s no universal imperative to believe or disbelieve anything…There’s no use pondering ‘Whether evolution is true or not’ until we defined ‘evolution’…what, on your worldview, is the universal imperative for an accidentally existing ape to provide testable evidence?…”
But I’m glad you agree that on Atheistic Evolution, “there’s no imperative for humans to explain evolution.”
“universal imperative” refers to an imperative that’s universal. This isn’t about that whatever on Earth you may mean when you use the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage term “evolution” “occurs whether we understand it or not,” the issue is that on an Atheistic Evolutionary worldview there’s no universal imperative for accidentally existing apes to acknowledge, believe in, hold to, adhere to, admit, etc. “evolution” even if it does really occur.
Professor Neturman
YEY MORE INCOHERENT RAMBLING
Ken Ammi
Friend, your tactic is crystal clear: when you encounter issues that are inconvenient to your worldview you just ignore them by subjectively labeling them incoherent. Yet, that which you subjectively declare to be incoherent isn’t a standard. Now, what imperative is there on your worldview for accidentally existing apes to be coherent?
That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.