Are Scientists Lying about Evolution?

[The Neo Nerd]

All right! So you cannot understand simple words, cannot understand synonyms, and cannot use a dictionary.

I understand the words you are saying which is why i have responded to the specific points you have made.

I am also a bit confused because you talked about aberrations, but this post does not address the issues i raised with your aberration argument.

Do you disagree with what i said?

I also studied earth science in high school, whilst this was 15 years ago, your fish argument does not seem to match with what i was taught in two ways.

A.) Your assertion that fish that swam near to the top of the ocean would not get fossilised.

B.) Your assertion that paleontologists would assume that any fish found fossilised would be a bottom feeder. From what i was taught they examine fossils with regards to the morphological aspects shown, not on the assumption that any fossilised fish must be a bottom feeder because only bottom feeders could be fossilised.

Now as i said, highschool was over a decade ago and i would love to see your sources for these assertions.

 

[Treks]

All right! So you cannot understand simple words, cannot understand synonyms, and cannot use a dictionary.

Why are you being so rude?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

A lie is an attempt to deceive.
Denying the truth is lying to yourself.
To preach said lie is still lying.

This is very commonly seen when creationists repeatedly spout the common misconceptions about evolution (eg. we came from monkeys) when they have been told repeatedly that, that is not what ToE says.

This can also be seen with their insistence on presenting apologetics when they have been PRATT (Previously Refuted a Thousand Times).

 

[Skwim]

A lie is an attempt to deceive.
Denying the truth is lying to yourself.
To preach said lie is still lying.

Yeah.
"Lying is to knowingly utter a falsehood," is the what
and
"A lie is an attempt to deceive." is the why.


.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You mean these thousands of preachers say to themselves, "Darn it, I'm going to make it a point to never learn anything about evolution. It's far better for all concerned that I remain ignorant." So if they're willfully ignorant about evolution exactly what is the lie they're spreading? Lying is to knowingly utter a falsehood, and if they don't know it's a falsehood how do they qualify as a liar?




.

From merriam-webster.com: lie: to create a false or misleading impression.

Awareness of the false or misleading impression is not part of it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So, do you accept the idea that we and carrots have a common ancestor?

Ciao

- viole

I've never studied that. Do you have some insight into the common ancestor of carrots and humans?

 

[Skwim]

From merriam-webster.com: lie: to create a false or misleading impression.

Awareness of the false or misleading impression is not part of it.

Not part of what?


.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Not part of what?


.

the lie.

 

[Sunstone]

I've never studied that. Do you have some insight into the common ancestor of carrots and humans?

All life forms have a common ancestor if you go back far enough. Plants and animals had a common ancestor about 1.6 billion years ago. It was almost certainly a single-celled life form that was itself neither plant nor animal.

 

[psychoslice]

If they are lying, then I have to say its the best lie i have heard on how we got here.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

All life forms have a common ancestor if you go back far enough. Plants and animals had a common ancestor about 1.6 billion years ago. It was almost certainly a single-celled eukaryote that was itself neither plant nor animal.

And there ya go. I am not a carrot top though.

 

[Sunstone]

And there ya go. I am not a carrot top though.

I don't know about the percent of DNA we share with carrots, but I was able to Google a National Geographic article that stated we share about a quarter of our DNA with rice. I would assume it's about the same for carrots.

 

[Skwim]

the lie.

I give up. I think I'll go talk to my toaster.


.

 

[viole]

I've never studied that. Do you have some insight into the common ancestor of carrots and humans?

If you have never studied X, what makes you competent enough to infer that X is a lie?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

I understand the words you are saying which is why i have responded to the specific points you have made.

I am also a bit confused because you talked about aberrations, but this post does not address the issues i raised with your aberration argument.

Do you disagree with what i said?

I also studied earth science in high school, whilst this was 15 years ago, your fish argument does not seem to match with what i was taught in two ways.

A.) Your assertion that fish that swam near to the top of the ocean would not get fossilised.

B.) Your assertion that paleontologists would assume that any fish found fossilised would be a bottom feeder. From what i was taught they examine fossils with regards to the morphological aspects shown, not on the assumption that any fossilised fish must be a bottom feeder because only bottom feeders could be fossilised.

Now as i said, highschool was over a decade ago and i would love to see your sources for these assertions.

Fossils are formed in a number of different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Accordingly, the fish in question are already half-way to being fossilized (they live and die in watery environments).

The remains of an organism that survive natural biological and physical processes must then become quickly buried by sediments. The probability for an organism to become fossilized increases if it already lives in the sediment , and those on the sea floor are more readily fossilized than those floating or swimming above it. Thus, the closer an animal is to the ocean floor when it dies, the more likely it is to be fossilized. Thus, the hypothetical fish that get fossilized are more likely to do so when they are swimming in shallower waters and near the ocean floor.

Bottom feeders are those animals that eat at or near the bottom floor. A fish need not be a detritivore to be classified as a bottom feeder.

 

[Zosimus]

Why are you being so rude?

Your post contained no logical arguments.

 

[Treks]

Your post contained no logical arguments.

I didn't write an argument, I asked a question - hence the question mark at the end. I'm not going to step out the reasoning that lead to the conclusion that you're being rude, I'll leave that for you to reflect upon.

 

[columbus]

Thus, the hypothetical fish that get fossilized are more likely to do so when they are swimming in shallower waters and near the ocean floor.

Do you think that paleontologists with Phds are unaware of this sort of thing?
Tom

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Fossils are formed in a number of different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Accordingly, the fish in question are already half-way to being fossilized (they live and die in watery environments).

The remains of an organism that survive natural biological and physical processes must then become quickly buried by sediments. The probability for an organism to become fossilized increases if it already lives in the sediment , and those on the sea floor are more readily fossilized than those floating or swimming above it. Thus, the closer an animal is to the ocean floor when it dies, the more likely it is to be fossilized. Thus, the hypothetical fish that get fossilized are more likely to do so when they are swimming in shallower waters and near the ocean floor.

Alright so we have established that those creatures who live closest to the seafloor are more likely to be fossilised. That's cool. That is logical.

However that does not address my objections to your two assertions.

A.) Your assertion that fish that swam near to the top of the ocean would not get fossilised.

B.) Your assertion that paleontologists would assume that any fish found fossilised would be a bottom feeder. From what i was taught they examine fossils with regards to the morphological aspects shown, not on the assumption that any fossilised fish must be a bottom feeder because only bottom feeders could be fossilised.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Saint Dawkins is incapable of lying.

I must put some fresh flowers on his shrine.