Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic

Posted on by

This video from David Wood seems to be pertinent to almost every discussion that takes place here. Perhaps it should be required viewing to any who would participate in this forum.

What do you think?

check it out.

https://youtu.be/YrGVeB_SPJg

 

peace

791 thoughts on “Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic”

  1. phoodoo: How many pages does the theory take up? Is it quotable?

    How many pages does any theory “take up”? Does it take up the same number of pages in Greek or Swahili as it does in English?

    How much quibbling can one fit during halftime of a Monday Night Football game?

  2. I’m beginning to think you all need to take a time-out. What a waste of virtual ink!

    sean s.

  3. walto,

    Is Futmuya’s book written in Swahili?

    There is nothing abstract whatsoever about the question. Rumraket claims the theory is physically written somewhere inside the book. So there must be an actual number of words or pages that the theory exists within. Its not ethereal.

    Unless its not true of course. Which it isn’t.

  4. How many pages is the theory of gravity or probability theory? How about the theory of intelligent design? Which part of Newton’s writings is his theory of mechanics?

  5. phoodoo: Allan never said the theory of evolution is hidden somewhere in the book-he said the book is the theory.

    Yeah one wonders what a person means when they say that a book “is” something.

    They couldn’t possibly mean by that, that the written contents in the book, on the pages of the book, is it.

    Once again we have you evolutionists hiding the theory somewhere like a skull and bones handshake. How many pages does the theory take up?Is it quotable?

    Nobody is hiding anything from you, it’s you who doesn’t want to do any work yourself.

    It’s in chapter 1, in a section called “What is evolution?”. I have a 2005 edition of the book but not in a quotable format. The basic principles of the theory is actually described in a list (which takes up two full pages of small-font text, so no I can’t be bothered sitting here and typing it out for you) of 16 such basic principles, each of which are elaborated upon in the book in different chapters.

  7. Rumraket: The basic principles of the theory is actually described in a list (which takes up two full pages of small-font text, so no I can’t be bothered sitting here and typing it out for you) of 16 such basic principles, each of which are elaborated upon in the book in different chapters.

    For some reason I thought it was much more concise than that. Shows how good my memory is. =P

    Sixteen principles huh. So it’s not just “stuff happens”?

  8. phoodoo: Is Futmuya’s book written in Swahili?

    There is nothing abstract whatsoever about the question. Rumraket claims the theory is physically written somewhere inside the book. So there must be an actual number of words or pages that the theory exists within. Its not ethereal.

    The basic principles are described in list form with 16 items on two full pages in small font, in the first chapter in a subsection called “The fundamental principles of evolution”. Each of which are elaborated upon in their own chapters. Fleshing this shit out is more work than anyone can be bothered doing just for your lazy ass to drool, chimp out and throw feces at.

    Unless its not true of course. Which it isn’t.

    http://www.sinauer.com/evolution-853.html

    You can see the table of contents (notice what the first chapter is called and is listed to contain) and download a sample chapter (ch 18 on speciation).

  9. It’s amusing how they think a theory has to be something that fits on the back of an envelope. Very telling.

  10. How much does the theory of evolution weigh? Can somebody answer me that?! If it exists it must weigh something! You’d think these “naturalists” would get that, at least!!

    X>{

  11. OMagain:
    It’s amusing how they think a theory has to be something that fits on the back of an envelope. Very telling.

    Well, “goddidit” fits on a postage stamp. Checkmate atheists!

  12. walto,

    Theory of mechanics? HUH?

    There is this you know:

    Newton’s First Law of Motion: A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force.

    Newton’s Second Law of Motion: The net force acting on an object is equal to the mass of that object times its acceleration.

    Newton’s Third Law of Motion: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation: The pull of gravity between two objects will be proportional to the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers of mass.

    Law of Conservation of Energy: Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and instead changes from one form to another; for example, mechanical energy turning into heat energy.

    Law of Conservation of Momentum: In the absence of external forces such as friction, when objects collide, the total momentum before the collision is the same as the total momentum after the collision.

    Bernoulli’s Principle: Within a continuous streamline of fluid flow, a fluid’s hydrostatic pressure will balance in contrast to its speed and elevation.

    Seems you understand theories about as well as Rumraket.

  13. Rumraket: The basic principles are described in list form

    The basic principles of what? Of the theory? Or are the basic principles the theory?

    So if any one of the basic principles of the theory is incorrect, the theory of evolution is not true? Because that is the only way you can have a theory that is falsifiable. Do you get that?

  16. phoodoo:
    walto,

    Theory of mechanics?HUH?

    There is this you know:

    Newton’s First Law of Motion: A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force.

    Newton’s Second Law of Motion: The net force acting on an object is equal to the mass of that object times its acceleration.

    Newton’s Third Law of Motion: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation: The pull of gravity between two objects will be proportional to the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers of mass.

    Law of Conservation of Energy: Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and instead changes from one form to another; for example, mechanical energy turning into heat energy.

    Law of Conservation of Momentum: In the absence of external forces such as friction, when objects collide, the total momentum before the collision is the same as the total momentum after the collision.

    Bernoulli’s Principle: Within a continuous streamline of fluid flow, a fluid’s hydrostatic pressure will balance in contrast to its speed and elevation.

    Seems you understand theories about as well as Rumraket.

    So, is that it? Is that the whole theory? If a later book includes stuff about, say, atoms, has the theory been discarded for a new theory? If Darwin’s natural selection plus random variation has been refined, is it a new theory? If Newton’s theory works for garden variety, middle sized-objects is it still true? Or is Newtonian mechanics false because it failed Michelson-Morley?

    What the hell are you talking about, anyhow? What do you think are the requirements for some book on science to put forth a theory? (Oh, and when will ID do anything like that?)

  17. Mung: 727 if you include the index.

    Wow, 727. And phoodoo thinks Newtonian mechanics only takes up one.

    Do YOU know what the hell he’s talking about?

  18. phoodoo: The basic principles of what? Of the theory? Or are the basic principles the theory?

    WTF are you asking exactly? Is your body your hands, arms, legs, head, etc. Or is there your body PLUS that stuff? (This is important because I want to ask your body what the hell you’re talking about, since you don’t seem to know.)

  19. phoodoo: The basic principles of what?Of the theory?Or are the basic principles the theory?

    Yes, in this case they are the theory.

    So if any one of the basic principles of the theory is incorrect, the theory of evolution is not true?Because that is the only way you can have a theory that is falsifiable.Do you get that?

    Yes, I get that and I have never disagreed. If one of the principles is incorrect, that aspect of the theory is wrong and needs to be modified in so far as that is possible.

    In the same way that if one of the principles of Newton’s theory of mechanics (colloquially Newtonian Mechanics or Classical Mechanics) is incorrect, it needs to be modified.

    For example if Newton’s Second Law of Motion, said: The net force acting on an object is equal to three times the mass of that object times twice its acceleration, this would be wrong.

    But it could be corrected into “The net force acting on an object is equal to the mass of that object times its acceleration”, and the theory as a whole could still be salvaged.

  21. phoodoo: Seems you understand theories about as well as Rumraket.

    Then he understands them very well, and apparently much better than you.

  22. walto: Godel sentences require a particular type of formalism to prevent circularity.

    OK,

    Are you saying that my sentence is not a Godel sentence or just that I have not demonstrated that it is a Godel sentence?

    peace

  23. As you wrote it, I don’t think it’s a Godel sentence; maybe you could turn it into one by having it assert it’s non-demonstrability. Not sure. I mentioned the form, because, as I recall, in his incompleteness proofs, he depends on the trick of “Godel numbering.”

  25. phoodoo: If you would like to now admit that there is no specific ‘theory of evolution” feel free to do so. I know others, like Rumraket, would never be honest enough to do so.

    There are many theories of evolution, all of them are each their own “specific” theory of evolution.

    In Futuyma’s textbook, you will find the one accepted by most evolutionary biologists.

  26. walto: you wrote it, I don’t think it’s a Godel sentence; maybe you could turn it into one by having it assert it’s non-demonstrability. Not sure. I mentioned the form, because, as I recall, in his incompleteness proofs, he depends on the trick of “Godel numbering.”

    OK that is a reasonable criticism. The “it’s not a claim” part was meant to assert the sentence’s non-demonstrability.

    I think I could make it work with “Godel numbering” If I was to put the effort into it. By effort I mean a long time spent in travail way over my head and I still might get it wrong in the end.

    I never felt the need to demonstrate it really because it seems obvious to me that it is a Godel sentence.

    It’s sounds like it might be fun now that I think about it perhaps I will get my kid the mathematical genius to work with me on it.

    peace

  27. phoodoo,

    Futuymas book is the theory of evolution? The whole book?

    No. In one short section on Chapter 1 page 4 he explains what the theory of evolution relates to. In Chapter 2 he gives a full historical account of theories of evolution and the modern synthesis. If one wanted to know these things, one could certainly do worse than consult such a book.

    You could have a copy for 36 cents (plus shipping, 3.99). I am already sending 10 dollars to charridy on Mung’s behalf. Why are you so coy about joining in?

    If, OTOH, you don’t think Futuyma’s 760-page book is comprehensive enough for you, what in fuck are you expecting me to type in a WordPress comment box on the subject?

    I wonder why, when I look up “theory of evolution” the first listing isn’t Futuyma? Actually the first listing is DARWIN’S theory of evolution, not Futuyma’s. How strange.

    That isn’t strange at all. Darwin is much better known to the layman than Futuyma. But we are not stuck in 1859, and we aren’t talking about the layman’s understanding. You wonder which theory of evolution we should pick, as if there were thousands. I didn’t realise you wanted the pizza delivery boy’s considered for inclusion.

    And when you look up evolution in Wikipedia, bullshit boy, it doesn’t say its Futuyma’s theory of evolution, in fact he is hardly even mentioned anywhere at all, except for some minor quote out of some 300 plus authors.

    And yet, this single book by Futumya is THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION! The entire book! Wow!

    It is an undergraduate level textbook on the subject. Is that somehow insufficient? What has he omitted?

    Bullshit, boy.

    Ah yes. Once more, the ‘use your opponent’s words’ gambit. Like a parrot.

    And not one word in that post supporting the contention that (I paraphrase) “there are [n] theories of evolution, and we poor souls just don’t know which to pick”.

  29. phoodoo,

    Well before we can explain a theory, we better first decide what the theory is. We haven’t even gotten that far yet. We can’t falsify an explanation, we need a theory to see if its falsifiable or not.

    And yet you refuse point-blank to consult a source that would commence that process, and dodge for all sorts of trivial reasons – such as the author not coming top of Google search results, chortle!

    How far have you got with referencing even one of the contradictory theories you think exist? You are certain there is more than one, but seem equally sure that people do not have even one. Which is somewhat contradictory.

  30. walto: Allan, of two things we can be sure.

    1. There is no theory of evolution.
    2. It is false.

    What do you mean when you say there is no theory of evolution?

    I don’t think of theories as true or false, I think of them as supported to a greater or lesser degree.

  31. Rumraket: There are many theories of evolution, all of them are each their own “specific” theory of evolution.

    In Futuyma’s textbook, you will find the one accepted by most evolutionary biologists.

    I agree with the first statement and disagree with the second statement. All theories of evolution are specific. Not even Darwin was convinced his theory of natural selection could account for every observation.

  32. Mung: I don’t think of theories as true or false, I think of them as supported to a greater or lesser degree.

    Something can be both supported to a greater or lesser extent and true and it can be both supported to a greater or lesser extent and false.

  33. phoodoo,

    Allan never said the theory of evolution is hidden somewhere in the book-he said the book is the theory.

    Uh. no, I said “Chapter 1 provides a good account of what evolution is, and historical notes on the development of theory to become what is, in the present day, ‘The Theory Of Evolution (Consensus Vn)’.”

    Chapter 1. A bit of Chapter 1. A useful summary. The book as a whole is for those who wish (or are compelled for course credits) to dig deeper. Chapter 1 is the potted version. I didn’t expect you to read the whole thing. In fact, I didn’t expect you to touch it with a barge pole. I thought it would be interesting to see what happened, and I wasn’t wrong.

    Once again we have you evolutionists hiding the theory somewhere like a skull and bones handshake. How many pages does the theory take up? Is it quotable?

    Gosh, if only there were some way to find out. Some published materials, perhaps … maybe going cheap on some internet bookstore … somewhere … ?

  34. walto,

    Allan, of two things we can be sure.

    1. There is no theory of evolution.
    2. It is false.

    3. Darwin stole this non-existent, wrong and impossible to articulate theory from someone else.

  35. Allan Miller: If, OTOH, you don’t think Futuyma’s 760-page book is comprehensive enough for you, what in fuck are you expecting me to type in a WordPress comment box on the subject?

    You don’t even have to type, you can just copy and paste from the books web site!

    http://sites.sinauer.com/evolution3e/

    evolution

    In a broad sense, the origin of entities possessing different states of one or more characteristics and changes in the proportions of those entities over time. Organic evolution, or biological evolution, is a change over time in the proportions of individual organisms differing genetically in one or more traits. Such changes transpire by the origin and subsequent alteration of the frequencies of genotypes from generation to generation within populations, by alteration of the proportions of genetically differentiated populations within a species, or by changes in the numbers of species with different characteristics, thereby altering the frequency of one or more traits within a higher taxon.

  36. Phoodoo, what, precisely is the point you are trying to make here? That there is no theory of evolution? Is that it? The emperor has no clothes?

    If so, you spend a ton of your life tilting at non-existing windmills. If there is no theory it’s not likely to be anything inconsistent with whatever it is that you believe, right? So why not wait until there’s a theory before taking the trouble to criticize it.? Then you wouldn’t be complaining about….nothing at all.

  37. Mung: evolution

    In a broad sense, the origin of entities possessing different states of one or more characteristics and changes in the proportions of those entities over time. Organic evolution, or biological evolution, is a change over time in the proportions of individual organisms differing genetically in one or more traits. Such changes transpire by the origin and subsequent alteration of the frequencies of genotypes from generation to generation within populations, by alteration of the proportions of genetically differentiated populations within a species, or by changes in the numbers of species with different characteristics, thereby altering the frequency of one or more traits within a higher taxon.

    That may not be short enough for phoodoo.

  38. Mung,

    You don’t even have to type, you can just copy and paste from the books web site!

    I am still unclear as to how much or how little of the book (or any other) is enough for phoodoo. Something other than what is provided, seems to be the yardstick.

  40. Evolution is a fact—a hypothesis that is so thoroughly supported that it is extremely unlikely to be false. The theory of evolution is not a speculation, but rather a complex set of well-supported hypotheses that explain how evolution happens.

    http://sites.sinauer.com/evolution3e/summary23.html

    The theory of evolution is … a complex set of well-supported hypotheses that explain how evolution happens.

    If this is in fact the case, is it any wonder that “the theory of evolution” can’t be clearly and concisely stated in a few words?

    Can anyone even say how many hypotheses there are that make up this set?

  41. Mung,

    Can anyone even say how many hypotheses there are that make up this set?

    As far as I am concerned all are elements of one: lineages change due to mutational events (which includes recombination and transposition) and populations change composition due to differential survival and reproduction of variant types. There are numerous corollaries and subtleties arising from this basic process, but that is pretty much the bones of it.

Leave a Reply