Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

You know that fossilization is a rare event. You also know that no fossil found to date contradicts the ToE. You have also been told that the fossil evidence is also supported by evidence for the ToE from other sciences such as genetics. That's a long way from your unsupported assertion of 'imagination.

So because fossilization is a rare event and the fossil record is actually a poor source of evidence for macro-evolution, we can't rely on it to prove anything?
You say there is no known fossil to date that contradicts evolution? I wonder if that would be because science gives fossils their voice in the first place? Science is hardly going to contradict itself....but if the fossils could speak for themselves...then we would hear an interesting story.

So, when we can't rely on fossils, we now hand the reigns over to genetics.....but do genetics really prove anything?...except that we share a lot of the same DNA as bananas?

We must be related then.....

So what is your basis for asserting that students don't know that scientific theories are not proven? I learned it from my teachers years before university.

I have seen interviews with students from various field of study in the sciences and they are sure that evolution is a fact...not an unproven theory. Perhaps your teachers were believers in ID?

you are misusing the word 'proof' here, or perhaps you still don't understand it.

Oh yes, I forgot about the scientific definition thingy.....must change the definition of words so that we don't appear to be telling porkey pies. Yep....got it.

This stale ID argument has been debunked so many times already it's not worth bothering with.

Yes we know about the "debunking".....but unfortunately it is only debunked in the minds of those who can't provide any intermediate fossils to prove that there ever was a slow evolution from one creature to the next. A giraffe with half a long neck....? or a dinosaur in the process of becoming a chicken perhaps....?

They must be there somewhere....scientists tell me that these things happened....and with a straight face.

How many times in this thread alone have you been told that evolution proceeds by small increments, and the better-adapted individuals produce more offspring?

And please show us where in any demonstrable way that there is proof that creatures can morph into other creatures.
The only thing science can actually state with any certainty is that fruit flies can become various species of fruit flies and stickleback fish can become a new variety of....stickleback fish. Bacteria can adapt to become a new species of....bacteria!

That is not evolution.

The JW ladies who visited me would not accept written material either about my religion, nor about evolution.

I wouldn't either.....you know why? After years of engaging people in conversation about religion and evolution, do you really think there is much left for us to know? Unless of course you follow a religion that I have never heard of. Are you free to share what beliefs you follow?

I left Christendom decades ago, so who can tell me anything about their beliefs that I don't already know? I investigated Mormonism and Eastern religions in my youth and even had a dabble in evolution for a while. If experience is the best teacher then I guess I am pretty well educated after 40 odd years of those conversations. I learn a lot from the people who post on this site. Those who have beliefs I am not acquainted with, along with those who have their very own religion. Belief, even if it's unbelief, is a fascinating thing.

Please understand that we cover a wide variety of topics in our weekly studies so we have no need to read about your religion specifically or about evolution either. We have all the information we need. We all have access to the Internet, so that we can research whatever we like. I love to do research, it always confirms the truth for me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species")

"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, co-discoverer of DNA)

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)

Also from Sir Fred Hoyle...my favorite..... "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious."

Most of these people say the same thing as you do: The universe seems too complex to them to have arisen naturalistically. That's fine for them, but it's not my position.

Also, such people need to explain why it is more likely that a god exists undesigned and uncreated than a living cell.

This is what other noted scientists have said......if they can't believe in evolution, because there is a complete lack of evidence, then why would anyone with half an once of intelligence disbelieve them?

They didn't say that there was a complete lack of evidence for evolution. In fact, your first quote begins with, "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology"

It Aint Necessarily So said: ↑
You still refuse to provide a mechanism that can prevent what you call "macroevolution" from occurring.

Well, your Honor, there is not a single shred of evidence that it has ever happened, so unless you have substantiated evidence, it needs to be thrown out of court!

You still haven't provided a mechanism that could prevent what you call "macroevolution" from occurring. You simply claim that it cannot, which is just another expression of incredulity: You just can't see how it could happen. I don't see what could stop it, and apparently, judging by your inability to suggest a mechanism, neither do you.

Incidentally, "It seems like such-and-such couldn't happen without an intelligent designer" is not an argument. It's an opinion - not even a claim. It doesn't become an argument until you add the implied conclusion "therefore it didn't happen," an obvious non sequitur fallacy. The conclusion doesn't follow from what preceded it.

That's what happens when you know the truth....everything else that is put up against it is a lie. I don't need to have a second choice if I already know the truth.

You claim to know the truth, but your method of determining it - faith - is flawed. Faith is not a path to truth. No method of determining truth that allows you to call any idea or its polar opposite the true is capable of determining truth. Isn't that self-evident?

Even if one were to choose to believe something by faith and happened to choose what would later be shown to be a true belief, he couldn't know that he had guessed correctly until something from the world of reason and evidence confirmed it. That is how empirical truth is determined. No other method works, including faith.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have full justification for throwing out an unproven theory. That's logical....no?

No, you don't. That is precisely what is meant by a leap of faith: an unjustified assumption.

I have no dilemmas....no second thoughts....no doubts. Its called conviction.

It's called faith, and that is another one of its chief flaws. Not only is it not a path to truth, it closes minds. One huge difference between our intellectual traditions is that yours considers certitude a virtue, whereas mine prizes skepticism, open-mindedness, tentative thought, and constant awareness of the possibility of error.

My process of elimination was done and dusted decades ago. Science has produced nothing in the way of convincing evidence since then.

Those two ideas are not unrelated. When you took the leap of faith, your mind closed to other possibilities. The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?" Scientist Bill Nye answered, 'Evidence.' Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian."

You have chosen to believe in evolution on faith too

I believe many things, but I believe in nothing, that is, I don't use faith. I have reasons for my beliefs, reasons that justify those beliefs. I understand that they are invisible to you.

You think the human brain is the result of a string of fortunate accidents?

"Accident" is your word. I believe that the human brain might have and probably did arise naturalistically, that is, by blind processes, undesigned and uncreated. That shouldn't be too difficult for somebody who believes that an omniscient mind exists by "accident."

It Aint Necessarily So said: ↑
I notice that you still haven't given a reason to replace a useful scientific theory like evolution with a sterile hypothesis like creationism.

Possibly because the adjectives you used in that last statement would indicate that I am wasting my breath. You do not want to be convinced.....and that is your prerogative.

You've never tried, just as you have never tried to identify the barrier between what you call micro- and macroevolution. The reason you don't answer is obvious: There is no reason to throw out a useful theory and replace it with one that has generated no useful ideas, so naturally, you cannot provide one.

 

[ArtieE]

Also, such people need to explain why it is more likely that a god exists undesigned and uncreated than a living cell.

I don't think Deeje has a theory as to how and why her God would exist in the first place. Do you Deeje?

 

[Deeje]

Most of these people say the same thing as you do: The universe seems too complex to them to have arisen naturalistically. That's fine for them, but it's not my position.

Also, such people need to explain why it is more likely that a god exists undesigned and uncreated than a living cell.

A living cell doesn't claim to be the originator of its own life, other life, and nor does it tell us that it created the universe.....does it? Would you believe it if it did?

The being that is described in our vocabulary as "God" is an unknown quantity to mere mortals of any intellectual level. What is known about him is only what he has revealed to men about himself. What science cannot admit is that there could be an intelligence out there more competent, more knowledgeable and more powerful than themselves. Such is the arrogance of science I guess.

They didn't say that there was a complete lack of evidence for evolution. In fact, your first quote begins with, "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology"

LOL...nice try. But you didn't finish the quote...."The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith?"

Doesn't say much for the "backbone" does it?......more like a "wishbone".

You still haven't provided a mechanism that could prevent what you call "macroevolution" from occurring. You simply claim that it cannot, which is just another expression of incredulity: You just can't see how it could happen. I don't see what could stop it, and apparently, judging by your inability to suggest a mechanism, neither do you.

So, as one representing the scientist's view here, (I am presuming you have credentials) can science provide the mechanism that "proves" that macro-evolution can naturally follow on from the adaptive changes only seen within a taxonomic family? Can you show us the transitional forms in the process of one creature transforming itself into another...not once but millions of times for each species on earth that science claims have evolved from a simple cell in the dim dark past, to all the life forms that have ever existed.....? Whatever the mechanism is, it has prevented science from demonstrating that macro-evolution is even possible. Speciation produces what? Variety within a species. That is adaptation, not proof for macro-evolution.
You cannot prove that your theory is true any more than I can produce my Creator for you in person.

Incidentally, "It seems like such-and-such couldn't happen without an intelligent designer" is not an argument. It's an opinion - not even a claim. It doesn't become an argument until you add the implied conclusion "therefore it didn't happen," an obvious non sequitur fallacy. The conclusion doesn't follow from what preceded it.

Goodness!! You just condemned science out of your own mouth. Were you intending to?

This unproven theory is the backbone of evolution remember? Science says evolution happened, no question about it...yet all they have is supposition that it "might have"....followed by the conclusion that it must have. Opinions...."an obvious non sequitur fallacy" perhaps? "The conclusion doesn't follow from what preceded it."

You claim to know the truth, but your method of determining it - faith - is flawed. Faith is not a path to truth. No method of determining truth that allows you to call any idea or its polar opposite the true is capable of determining truth. Isn't that self-evident?

You are correct. Faith is not something that can be forced or even coaxed. It comes from the heart. It is a conviction that leaves no room for doubt. If one has doubts then they can be undone by specious or deceptive reasoning. True faith gives a person such strong conviction that nothing can supplant it. It isn't a 'fingers in the ears' kind of conviction, but rather one based on accurate knowledge of your faith and what it teaches. It isn't just hoping that you are right...it is *knowing* that you are because of the personal relationship you have with the originator of that faith. It is very hard to describe to someone who has never experienced it. You can't fake it.

Even if one were to choose to believe something by faith and happened to choose what would later be shown to be a true belief, he couldn't know that he had guessed correctly until something from the world of reason and evidence confirmed it. That is how empirical truth is determined. No other method works, including faith.

The fact that a person can have such doubts and refer to belief as 'guesses' that need to be confirmed by evidence, shows that they never possessed faith at all. It is an empty hope based on nothing real. My faith is based on the reality of the universe, the magnificence of the world, and all life on it. I have confirmed in my own mind that this evidence is impossible to dismiss as mere accidents of nature, or undirected chance mutations or natural selection....and what about the natural laws that never change? Can these come into existence without a purpose or a director? That to me is ridiculous! as are a million other things I could tender....

 

[Deeje]

I don't think Deeje has a theory as to how and why her God would exist in the first place. Do you Deeje?

I don't know enough about the person whom I refer to as "The Creator", to venture an opinion on "what" he is, or even "where" he is, let alone "why" he exists....I just know from the scriptures and the teachings of Jesus Christ, "who" The Creator is....what his original purpose in creation was....and why we humans are absolutely useless at governing ourselves.

God answers life's big questions for me....science answers nothing, but just adds to my long list of unanswerable questions. Corrupted intelligent minds have led to the invention of heinous weapons and deadly poisons...polluted air and water and artificially produced foods are slowly killing us. All hail science and technology.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It Aint Necessarily So said: ↑such people need to explain why it is more likely that a god exists undesigned and uncreated than a living cell.

A living cell doesn't claim to be the originator of its own life, other life, and nor does it tell us that it created the universe.....does it? Would you believe it if it did?

The being that is described in our vocabulary as "God" is an unknown quantity to mere mortals of any intellectual level. What is known about him is only what he has revealed to men about himself. What science cannot admit is that there could be an intelligence out there more competent, more knowledgeable and more powerful than themselves. Such is the arrogance of science I guess.

You've evaded yet another point. You can run from these questions, but it is noticed. Each reader can conclude for himself why you preferred to do so.

LOL...nice try. But you didn't finish the quote...."The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith?"

Doesn't say much for the "backbone" does it?......more like a "wishbone".

All scientific theories are unproven.

What will it take for you to learn something that simple? For moths now I've seen you fail to learn that simple fact.

And yet again, you prefer to ignore a point made to you than address it. Is there some reason you prefer not to address the fact that your source called evolution a fact and the backbone of biology?

So, as one representing the scientist's view here, (I am presuming you have credentials) can science provide the mechanism that "proves" that macro-evolution can naturally follow on from the adaptive changes only seen within a taxonomic family? Can you show us the transitional forms in the process of one creature transforming itself into another...not once but millions of times for each species on earth that science claims have evolved from a simple cell in the dim dark past, to all the life forms that have ever existed.....? Whatever the mechanism is, it has prevented science from demonstrating that macro-evolution is even possible. Speciation produces what? Variety within a species. That is adaptation, not proof for macro-evolution.
You cannot prove that your theory is true any more than I can produce my Creator for you in person.

Science doesn't need to prove anything to you or anybody else. It is happy just to determine how reality works and gift mankind with that knowledge.

The fact that a person can have such doubts and refer to belief as 'guesses' that need to be confirmed by evidence, shows that they never possessed faith at all.

Faith is not something that I want in my life. It has nothing to offer me.

what about the natural laws that never change? Can these come into existence without a purpose or a director?

Why not?

 

[Deeje]

You've evaded yet another point. You can run from these questions, but it is noticed. Each reader can conclude for himself why you preferred to do so.

Anyone who read my response to you can see that I answered your question in detail....again, perhaps not the way you wanted me to. I answered you honestly though.

And yet again, you prefer to ignore a point made to you than address it. Is there some reason you prefer not to address the fact that your source called evolution a fact and the backbone of biology?

Oh dear...this is what no redress looks like.

The full quote used the first part of that sentence to contrast what came next.....here it is in full....
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith?"

You've run out of ammo, haven't you? That was dishonest.

Science doesn't need to prove anything to you or anybody else. It is happy just to determine how reality works and gift mankind with that knowledge.

If science is going to claim the high ground on this issue and brag about evolution being a "fact", pushing it onto school children, then it better have the proof... otherwise, as you said before...its nothing more than an opinion. Are you willing to stake your life on an opinion?...one that has no real proof that it ever happened?

Faith is not something that I want in my life. It has nothing to offer me.

Duly noted. Although it seems you have a lot of faith in science when it comes to their theory. Your faith is apparently as strong as mine....but in the other direction. That's OK....you are free to accept whatever you wish as your truth.

Why not?

Because purpose requires intelligence and all laws have a purpose.

In order to accomplish that purpose someone intelligent had to create those laws for a specific reason, and then implement them. They had to have a penalty for disobeying them as well. Imagine what would happen if scientists ignored shock layer heating that causes intense friction for any body entering or re-entering the earth's atmosphere from space....? If they provided no heat shield for the space shuttle, we would have barbecued astronauts! Gives me the impression that this feature of earth's design is meant to keep most objects from reaching the earth's surface if they do manage to penetrate our atmosphere. A meteorite hitting the earth is a very rare event, although meteorites are plentiful in space....shooting stars and all that....

 

[ArtieE]

I don't know enough about the person whom I refer to as "The Creator", to venture an opinion on "what" he is, or even "where" he is, let alone "why" he exists....I just know from the scriptures and the teachings of Jesus Christ, "who" The Creator is....what his original purpose in creation was....and why we humans are absolutely useless at governing ourselves.

God answers life's big questions for me....science answers nothing, but just adds to my long list of unanswerable questions.

You can't even venture an opinion on "what" your creator is, or even "where" he is, let alone "why" he exists? It is you who don't have any answers to big questions. Now, if you had a logical and rational theory backed up by evidence about "what" your creator is, "where" he is and "why" he would exist in the first place I would consider your theory.

 

[Deeje]

You can't even venture an opinion on "what" your creator is, or even "where" he is, let alone "why" he exists? It is you who don't have any answers to big questions. Now, if you had a logical and rational theory backed up by evidence about "what" your creator is, "where" he is and "why" he would exist in the first place I would consider your theory.

Do I need to know "what" God is or "where he is"...or even "why" he exists to know that he is an Intelligent Designer of all things?.....NO!...just as I don't need to know Leonardo daVinci or where he lived, or why he existed to appreciate the talent behind his work.

"That God is" and "what he does" is much more important to me. I think his work is awesome!

DaVinci's is pretty good too.

 

[ArtieE]

Do I need to know "what" God is or "where he is"...or even "why" he exists to know that he is an Intelligent Designer of all things?.....NO!...

Maybe you don't care about not having any answers to the BIG questions like "what" God is or "where he is" or "why" he exists in the first place but atheists do care. If you theists can come up with a logical and rational theory answering these questions I'm sure atheists will consider your theory.

 

[Deeje]

Maybe you don't care about not having any answers to the BIG questions like "what" God is or "where he is" or "why" he exists in the first place but atheists do care. If you theists can come up with a logical and rational theory answering these questions I'm sure atheists will consider your theory.

Whether or not you "consider" it, is nothing to do with me. I offer a viewpoint and whoever reads it can make up their own mind.
No one is required to do anything against their will. The Creator will not force you to believe.....just yet. You cannot become a believer unless you want to believe....just as you can choose to become an unbeliever if that is what the evidence suggests to you. You have to ask yourself how valid the evidence really is.

Can you give me a reason why you think God would be bothered with people who can't be bothered with him?
I can't think of any. And those who do believe in the Creator, do not require more evidence than they already have.....so it becomes a matter of the heart.....each believing what their heart tells them is true. We are given the opportunity of being caught in the act of being ourselves. God sees who we really are...not merely who we pretend to be or which label we wear.
We are the authors of our own destiny.

 

[Olinda]

So because fossilization is a rare event and the fossil record is actually a poor source of evidence for macro-evolution, we can't rely on it to prove anything?

Yes, fossilization is rare.
No, the fossil record is not 'a poor source of evidence'
Yes, it doesn't prove anything, but it is a valuable source of evidence.

You say there is no known fossil to date that contradicts evolution?

Indeed I do.

I wonder if that would be because science gives fossils their voice in the first place? Science is hardly going to contradict itself....but if the fossils could speak for themselves...then we would hear an interesting story.

I wonder why you suppose your unsupported speculations have any value. Can you provide any example of fossil evidence which contradicts evolution, or just verbiage?

So, when we can't rely on fossils,

You have not shown any problem with the evidence of the fossil record.

we now hand the reigns over to genetics.....but do genetics really prove anything?...

Genetics provide evidence, not proof
Other branches of science that also provide evidence for the ToE include
1. comparative physiology
2. biochemistry
3. comparative anatomy
4. paleontology
5. biogeography
6. mathematical modelling

I have seen interviews with students from various field of study in the sciences and they are sure that evolution is a fact...not an unproven theory. Perhaps your teachers were believers in ID?

Hopefully not just from that dishonestly edited Ray Comfort video.

Oh yes, I forgot about the scientific definition thingy.....must change the definition of words so that we don't appear to be telling porkey pies. Yep....got it.

No, sorry, you haven't got it. I'm using the dictionary definition for proof, namely, "evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement".
Science simply recognizes that "a great deal of evidence" as there is for common descent, is still short of "proof".

Yes we know about the "debunking".....but unfortunately it is only debunked in the minds of those who can't provide any intermediate fossils to prove that there ever was a slow evolution from one creature to the next.

Already addressed in the first paragraph.

And please show us where in any demonstrable way that there is proof that creatures can morph into other creatures.

And yet you confidently believe that placid vegetarians 'morphed' into efficient carnivores in less than 5000 years? Do tell, what do you think a plant-eating shark looked like?
Oh yes, unless, perhaps, they preyed on "small" creatures before the flood? And yet you accuse science of guessing!

I wouldn't either.....you know why? After years of engaging people in conversation about religion and evolution, do you really think there is much left for us to know? Unless of course you follow a religion that I have never heard of.

Maybe you don't remember, but I told you that these ladies came at the request of another jw and asked if they could discuss religious issues with me. What sort of discussion requires that they ignore any supporting material I can provide, while asking me to work through their provided literature, which even tells me what questions I should ask?
I could only conclude that discussion was never their intention, which implies false pretentions.

Are you free to share what beliefs you follow?

Yes, certainly, but given the above and your off-topic derision of Mormonism when you thought that I followed that belief system, I'm reluctant to do so.

Please understand that we cover a wide variety of topics in our weekly studies so we have no need to read about your religion specifically or about evolution either. We have all the information we need. We all have access to the Internet, so that we can research whatever we like. I love to do research, it always confirms the truth for me.

Good to hear. Given that, and your liking for Wiki, please read the Wiki article "Evidence of common descent" so that you can avoid the errors I've indicated here in your last reply.

 

[osgart]

I'm sorry, I was messing with nothing again and made another universe. I'll try to corral this one though, so no worries please.

no seriously though our universe is a wild animal that had to be tamed by an intelligence that created life.

The universe is a brute fact, and than an intelligence was able to manipulate it, and harness it's resources. and here we are.

 

[gnostic]

I'm sorry, I was messing with nothing again and made another universe. I'll try to corral this one though, so no worries please.

no seriously though our universe is a wild animal that had to be tamed by an intelligence that created life.

The universe is a brute fact, and than an intelligence was able to manipulate it, and harness it's resources. and here we are.

You are just making wild claims without a single evidence for Intelligent Design or for Creationism.

 

[Jose Fly]

If all this 'evolving' took place, where is the evidence for slowly evolving parts in those creatures not yet completely evolved? How do you explain the multitudes of creatures who had to evolve as both males and females at the same time for reproduction? Did these all just co-incidentally evolve as a 'couple' with their respective 'equipment' in various stages of completeness until one day they discovered how to mate? And this happened with how many different species of birds, reptiles, land animals and marine creatures?

Deeje, it's trivially easy to find the answers to those questions, even without committing to something like taking a university course. A few days or weeks reading some online resources, or just going to the library and picking up a college-level textbook would do it.

So that leads to an obvious issue......if it's so easy to get the answers to your questions, why haven't you taken the small amount of time to find them? Further, why is someone who claims to have undertaken "serious study" of evolutionary biology asking such elementary questions? Shouldn't you have come across the answers during this "serious study"?

Do you appreciate how the basic level of your questions exposes as a lie your claim to have undertaken "serious study"? Do you understand how it's like someone who said they've seriously studied the Bible, then asking who Jesus was? As soon as you see that question, your first thought is "He didn't study anything", isn't it?

Understand?

 

[Jose Fly]

I have no dilemmas....no second thoughts....no doubts. Its called conviction. I am grateful for it because it took me a long time to arrive at this destination....and I would not swap it for anything, let alone something as absurd as macro-evolution is.

Then why do you keep asking people to show you evidence of it and explain it? You just expressed absolute certainty about your beliefs and directly said you would never change your mind, no matter what.

So why should anyone waste time looking up and/or explaining information on evolutionary biology for such a person? We already know what will happen, right? Someone will take the time to find material, link to it, copy some of it, and explain it.....as you requested. Then you'll make up some reason to wave it away ("it's adaptation not evolution", "I don't understand it, which shows it's fraudulent", "on a Wiki page they use the word 'likely'"), never showing any gratitude at all that someone went out of their way to answer your questions. Then when you're called on your reasons for dismissing the data, you leave the discussion with that person, only to go ask the same things of someone else.

Given that documented behavior by you, why should anyone spend any amount of time showing or explaining anything to you?

 

[savagewind]

Then why do you keep asking people to show you evidence of it and explain it? You just expressed absolute certainty about your beliefs and directly said you would never change your mind, no matter what.

So why should anyone waste time looking up and/or explaining information on evolutionary biology for such a person? We already know what will happen, right? Someone will take the time to find material, link to it, copy some of it, and explain it.....as you requested. Then you'll make up some reason to wave it away ("it's adaptation not evolution", "I don't understand it, which shows it's fraudulent", "on a Wiki page they use the word 'likely'"), never showing any gratitude at all that someone went out of their way to answer your questions. Then when you're called on your reasons for dismissing the data, you leave the discussion with that person, only to go ask the same things of someone else.

Given that documented behavior by you, why should anyone spend any amount of time showing or explaining anything to you?

Why not YOU tell us? Why have you done just that?

 

[Jose Fly]

The JW ladies who visited me would not accept written material either about my religion, nor about evolution.

About 20-some years ago, right after I finished up with college, two Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door on a summer day. Being a bit bored, I invited them in (much to the chagrin of my wife). As we began talking, I asked them what their church teaches about evolution. They got very excited and handed me a couple of pamphlets. So I asked them if they wouldn't mind if we walked through that material, one item at a time. They agreed.

One of the first things in one of the pamphlets was a claim and some quotes about a "lack of transitional fossils". So I asked the two what they thought a "transitional fossil" would look like. And I went straight to the heart of the issue, by asking them specifically what a "transitional fossil" would look like if humans shared a common ancestry with other primates. They hemmed and hawed a bit, but eventually I got them to agree that a human/primate transitional would be a specimen that showed a mosaic of more primitive "ape-like" traits and modern "human-like" traits (rather simplistic I know).

Once they agreed, I then pulled out some of my textbooks and showed them the descriptions of various hominid fossils. After I pointed out all the different traits, I asked them "Now, isn't that exactly what we just agreed would be a transitional?" They tried to offer a few excuses and change the subject, but I wouldn't let them off that easy. I kept pressing......."You agreed that a transitional would shows these sorts of traits, and now you've seen multiple specimens with exactly those traits. So do you agree that, by your own terms, transitional fossils do indeed exist?"

They tried to say things like how we don't really know how those fossils got there, or that we can't prove that they evolved into anything else. But I stuck to the subject.....regardless of how they got there or their ultimate fate, they exist and they show the traits we all agreed would make them "transitionals". Eventually they looked at each other and said "We're going to leave you with some of our literature and be on our way". They never came back.

See, in online forums people like Deeje can ignore questions and information, and there isn't anything any of us can do about it. We can point it out over and over, and Deeje can just ignore that too. But in person....one-on-one.....it's a lot more difficult to do, and when you do just get up and leave, it's visibly obvious that you're conceding the argument. That's why creationists never win in court or science. In both those arenas, you can't just ignore questions and data without consequence.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why not YOU tell us? Why have you done just that?

I stopped a while ago, once I realized who I was dealing with.

Whenever I encounter a creationist I haven't met before, I always give them the benefit of the doubt and I take the time to provide the information they ask for. But once I see them do what Deeje has done, I stop.