What convinced you that Evolution is the truth?

[Tomef]

From cdesign proponentsists propaganda sources.
No scientific source is going to be mentioning fallacious bullocks like "irreducible complexity", except as an example of dishonest religious pseudo-science

Fallacious bullocks? Like heifers with strap-ons?

 

[Pogo]

Saying "evolution is a fact" is indoctrination per se.

No evolution is a fact observed every day, the theory is our best understanding of how it works,
Denying evolution because it disagrees with your religious upbringing falls into the category of "the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically."

but thanks for including the smiley so we can think you are not so foolish as to believe your statement.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Saying "evolution is a fact" is indoctrination per se.

Only if that idea is being taught through repetition without a compelling, evidenced argument can it be called indoctrination. If one's professor in an evolution course says that and follows it up with compelling, evidenced argument, then that's education and not indoctrination.

Another difference between the two is that your indoctrinator cares that you believe him, whereas your legitimate teachers only care that you can demonstrate having learned what was taught and will not ask you if you believe it.

 

[Eli G]

The most feasible proof of the falsity of the evolutionary doctrine is the despair of its defenders and the inability they have to defend it in a logical and calm manner...

That despair is, almost without exception, shown in their constant personal disqualifications in this forum and in others.

Evidently they are so confused that they think that beliefs are demonstrated with a bad attitude, when the opposite is true.

 

[Pogo]

The most feasible proof of the falsity of the evolutionary doctrine is the despair of its defenders and the inability they have to defend it in a logical and calm manner...

That despair is, almost without exception, shown in their constant personal disqualifications in this forum and in others.

Evidently they are so confused that they think that beliefs are demonstrated with a bad attitude, when the opposite is true.

since evolutionary doctrine is a figment of denialists imagination you have the right to have them do anything you want. In the meantime reality doesn't miss you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Saying "evolution is a fact" is indoctrination per se.

That is incorrect. One could make that claim if one could not support it, but most people that accept evolution here can support their claims. You on the other hand do not even appear to understand the concept of evidence. That means it will appear to you that people are not supporting their claims.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The most feasible proof of the falsity of the evolutionary doctrine is the despair of its defenders

That's projection. YOU would be in despair without your god belief, so you presume others must be as well. So many believers see atheists as unhappy automatons with no inner life or as unhappy, undisciplined, rebellious, immoral, licentious hedonists.

and the inability they have to defend it in a logical and calm manner...

More projection. Virtually all of the emotional posting I see in discussions between believers and unbelievers comes from the believers. If you're a Star Trek fan, just think of Mr. Spock and Dr. McCoy. Spock has the cool, dispassionate demeanor of a typical atheistic humanist, and the doctor is quick to anger and disapproval.

Humanists are all more or less good examples of thoughtful and beneficent people. Look at the ones you encounter on RF. They're well-read, they're constructive, they're decent, and they're emotionally continent. When you see angst in these threads, it's believer upset about their beliefs and arguments not being respected, often leading to some form of, "You'll see, and by then, it will be too late," or some comment like your above describing unbelievers as defective or deficient.

I understand that most believers wouldn't want to trade places with the atheistic humanist, but do you understand that the reverse is true as well. I, for example, am grateful to be secure and content without a god belief or a religion.

Evidently they are so confused that they think that beliefs are demonstrated with a bad attitude, when the opposite is true.

Actually, it's you who is confused if you think beliefs are demonstrated with a good attitude. Beliefs are justified with sufficient evidence.

 

[Eli G]

So far, none of my questions have been answered according to what they state. It seems that forum members are machines that write from some manual, but cannot understand the real statements of others.

For some reason some don't even notice it... but obviously, because I have asked dozens of questions myself, I can definitely say with complete certainty that they have never been answered... not to mention any supposed evidence. Evidence of what?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So far, none of my questions have been answered according to what they state ... I have asked dozens of questions myself, I can definitely say with complete certainty that they have never been answered

I don't know what "according to what they state" means, but many if not all of your questions have been answered, which I can attest to with certainty. It's a common complaint from creationists. I assume that they either cannot see answers due to a faith-based confirmation bias or they can't understand them.

It seems that forum members are machines that write from some manual, but cannot understand the real statements of others.

The people disagreeing with you give you similar answers for a good reason. It's like you complaining about adding machines and computers all giving you the same answer to an addition problem.

And they have no trouble understanding what creationists write, which is another common complaint from creationists, who apparently think that their case is so strong that those who reject it must not have understood it. Critical thinkers simply reject the unfalsifiable claims and the fallacious special pleading, straw man, incredulity and ignorantiam arguments.

 

[YoursTrue]

No evolution is a fact observed every day, the theory is our best understanding of how it works,

Evolution is a fact observed every day? How? By some people born with blonde hair and others with dark hair? By some with short legs and others with long legs? It that how evolution is a fact?

 

[Pogo]

Evolution is a fact observed every day? How? By some people born with blonde hair and others with dark hair? By some with short legs and others with long legs? It that how evolution is a fact?

That is a tiny little bit of it in that they are changes in allele frequency and in that every person born has about 70 mutations their parents didn't have which contributes to the expansion of the genome.
See, it wasn't that hard, now we can work on what happens over longer periods of time.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is a tiny little bit of it in that they are changes in allele frequency and in that every person born has about 70 mutations their parents didn't have which contributes to the expansion of the genome.
See, it wasn't that hard, now we can work on what happens over longer periods of time.

I thought you might think that way. (thanks)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fallacious bullocks? Like heifers with strap-ons?

I grew up on a "part time" farm. This got to me because we would pasture the heifers of a nearby dairy farm during the summer. So I know what makes a heifer a heifer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Saying "evolution is a fact" is indoctrination per se.

Not when it's followed by "...and here's why..."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So far, none of my questions have been answered according to what they state.

Your questions are loaded up with strawman and therefor can't be answered.
We can only point out the strawman.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So far, none of my questions have been answered according to what they state. It seems that forum members are machines that write from some manual, but cannot understand the real statements of others.

For some reason some don't even notice it... but obviously, because I have asked dozens of questions myself, I can definitely say with complete certainty that they have never been answered... not to mention any supposed evidence. Evidence of what?

We've all responded to your questions and your misunderstandings about evolution many times over. In detail.

You continue to ignore them and instead, have opted to just talk to yourself.

 

[Eli G]

I don't have any satisfactory answer to my questions, as I said.

Someone replied: "Your questions (...) can't be answered."
Another one said: "We've all responded to your questions".

They don't even agree on that.

The funny thing about it is that "they" use the personal pronoun "WE" every time "they" say something, as if "they" were a cult. If "they" are, "they" seem to be very divided "among themselves". "They" remind me of what Jesus Christ said:

Mark 3:24 Why, if a kingdom becomes divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand; 25 and if a house becomes divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 Also, if Satan has risen up against himself and become divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end.

What a great privilege to be a Jehovah's Witness!!! We can use the pronoun WE; it is a real identity, not a fake one.

 

[Pogo]

I don't have any satisfactory answer to my questions, as I said.

Someone replied: "Your questions (...) can't be answered."
Another one said: "We've all responded to your questions".

They don't even agree on that.

The funny thing about it is that "they" use the personal pronoun "WE" every time "they" say something, as if "they" were a cult. If "they" are, "they" seem to be very divided "among themselves". "They" remind me of what Jesus Christ said:

Mark 3:24 Why, if a kingdom becomes divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand; 25 and if a house becomes divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 Also, if Satan has risen up against himself and become divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end.

What a great privilege to be a Jehovah's Witness!!! We can use the pronoun WE; it is a real identity, not a fake one.

Answering and responding are two different things. When you posit silly fantasies about what you pretend our position to be we cannot answer in the sense of giving you the requested information.
We can and often do respond in obviously fruitless ways to help you understand where you are making your primary error.

 

[Pogo]

I don't have any satisfactory answer to my questions, as I said.

Someone replied: "Your questions (...) can't be answered."
Another one said: "We've all responded to your questions".

They don't even agree on that.

The funny thing about it is that "they" use the personal pronoun "WE" every time "they" say something, as if "they" were a cult. If "they" are, "they" seem to be very divided "among themselves". "They" remind me of what Jesus Christ said:

Mark 3:24 Why, if a kingdom becomes divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand; 25 and if a house becomes divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 Also, if Satan has risen up against himself and become divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end.

What a great privilege to be a Jehovah's Witness!!! We can use the pronoun WE; it is a real identity, not a fake one.

Answering and responding are two different things. When you posit silly fantasies about what you pretend our position to be we cannot answer in the sense of giving you the requested information.
We can and often do respond in obviously fruitless ways to help you understand where you are making your primary error.

 

[Eli G]

The biological information about how cells will divide and what process they will follow to transform into different organs, within different kinds of bodies, and even some habits that new generations of descendants of such "genetic parents" will have is clearly defined in DNA (and other types of physical cells) that are transmitted directly from parents to children. Thats the reality.

On the other side evolutionists would have us believe that the information within the DNA of a single-celled organism was transformed over time into the information in the DNA in a human.

Theoretically speaking, any information change of that type would require energy capable of generating that process. Taking into account how much information is actually lost and how much new information should occur from the first to the last, following certain laws and using certain amount of energy for that presumed process ... Is it really credible that this process has occurred, or that it did happen automatically? How long would something like this take?

Things cannot be taken for granted by mere speculation. Its real probability must be calculated taking into account the facts.