Darwinism Cannot Explain The Peacock

Sorry, but I'm not afraid to say, "I don't know."

Your last paragraph is a case in point, where you seem to indicate that I must either provide some alternative theory of peacocks or find myself beholden to support the prevailing scientific fad of our times.

I must say, though, I admire your faith that somehow somewhere science will complete the story. It's touching in its naive simplicity.

To Blue Jay I say this: Don't think that just tightening the p value to 0.01 will be a panacea to the problems that plague science. We know that science is based on the logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent." Accordingly no positive find can ever be certain. You may go out and find a million black ravens, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of a white one that you just haven't found yet. Perhaps we can calculate the subjective probability that all ravens are black using Bayesian statistics, but that will never reach 100 percent.So now that we have taken a look at the math let's return to the peacock train situation. Anyone with a brain can look at the peacock and seriously doubt that the theory of natural selection can actually explain that train that thing away. Maybe it can, but odds are that it can't. In order to use Bayesian statistics we must first know the a priori chance and since we don't know that we are required to make a guess. Yes, for those of you who think that science is some sort of infallible method, scientists spend most of their time guessing. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Let me throw the ball back in your court: What makes you think that truth exists? What makes you think that science can discover truth? What makes you think that your brain, which you believed evolved into the form it is in order to enable you to shag more women, is even capable of recognizing or comprehending truth?

I can't count the number of times I've heard that science has put a man on the moon and how the Internet wouldn't be possible without science. People roll their eyes and say how hard they laugh that someone uses their computer to say that science doesn't work.On the other hand, I can't count the number of times I've heard that the Earth wouldn't exist without Jesus Christ, much less the Sun, and my body, and there would be no plants or animals to eat. They say that they laugh every time someone stands on the Earth and says they don't believe in God.Although you may find it strange, I don't see any difference between their position and yours.

You are two sides of the same coin - a bunch of gibbering idiots insisting that the truths printed in your holy books are beyond questioning.

Egyptians build the pyramids, so I guess that means I need to believe in Ra, too, don't I?

Here's a news flash for you - the most important reasons I have the computer I'm typing on are three:1. Double-entry accounting.
2. Charles Babbage, mathematician, and his differential engine.
3. Six Sigma Statistical methods.

Or are you one of those people who thinks that math is science?

Well, I for one am always interested in mocking the egregiously wrong. Character flaw or hobby? --- you decide.