Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[nPeace]

Ok.


Sure.


Yes, I totally understand how that's your position.


Yes, I understand. What I wonder is whether you recognize how the above influences your belief that the existence of transitional fossils "are assumed to be such".

No. That doesn't influence my belief.
If that were the case, the only persons not believing in ToE would be JWs. That's not the case. There are agnostics, and others who do not believe, or even take the Bible literally, who do not accept ToE.
If I were not a JW today, I would still not believe ToE, simply because I see no evidence for it. I see merely speculations and assumptions given in support of it.
It has nothing to do with the Bible.
I would be one of those skeptics - skeptical about the Bible, and skeptical about ToE.

I kinda understand why persons like to put everyone opposed to your views in one cart though. Not that it's right, but I understand.

 

[Jose Fly]

No. That doesn't influence my belief.

Really? You're actually expecting me to believe that being a Jehovah's Witness plays absolutely no role in your views on evolution, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses have very strict dogma on the subject and any deviation from that dogma will result in expulsion from the faith and complete isolation from all other Witnesses?

Come on now....you're insulting my intelligence. I mean....are you actually trying to say that denial of evolution by all Jehovah's Witnesses across the globe is completely unrelated to the Jehovah's Witness organization mandating that all their members deny evolution?

If that were the case, the only persons not believing in ToE would be JWs.

That's completely backwards. For that to be true, the Jehovah's Witnesses would have to be the only religious sect that requires evolution denial, and we know that's not the case.

If I were not a JW today, I would still not believe ToE, simply because I see no evidence for it. I see merely speculations and assumptions given in support of it.
It has nothing to do with the Bible.
I would be one of those skeptics - skeptical about the Bible, and skeptical about ToE.

So you're saying your faith in the Bible and Jehovah's Witness doctrine could easily be cast aside and abandoned if the right fossil, genetic data, lab experiment, or field data were produced?

 

[nPeace]

Really? You're actually expecting me to believe that being a Jehovah's Witness plays absolutely no role in your views on evolution, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses have very strict dogma on the subject and any deviation from that dogma will result in expulsion from the faith and complete isolation from all other Witnesses?

Come on now....you're insulting my intelligence. I mean....are you actually trying to say that denial of evolution by all Jehovah's Witnesses across the globe is completely unrelated to the Jehovah's Witness organization mandating that all their members deny evolution?


That's completely backwards. For that to be true, the Jehovah's Witnesses would have to be the only religious sect that requires evolution denial, and we know that's not the case.


So you're saying your faith in the Bible and Jehovah's Witness doctrine could easily be cast aside and abandoned if the right fossil, genetic data, lab experiment, or field data were produced?

Believe whatever your highly intelligent, and all-knowing mind would have you believe. Or is that just the usual, "I know we don't have any verifiable evidence, so let me just pretend we do" tactic.
I go where the evidence leads.
Peace out.

 

[Jose Fly]

Believe whatever your highly intelligent, and all-knowing mind would have you believe.

Well yeah.

I tend to believe it's not a coincidence that Orthodox Jews don't work on Saturdays.

I tend to believe it's not a coincidence that Muslims don't eat pork.

I tend to believe it's not a coincidence that the Amish don't drive cars.

And by the same token, I tend to believe it's not a coincidence that Jehovah's Witnesses don't recognize evolution as valid science.

Or is that just the usual, "I know we don't have any verifiable evidence, so let me just pretend we do" tactic.

Huh? There is abundant evidence showing that all Jehovah's Witnesses denying evolution is not mere coincidence, including your own posts.

EDIT: I may have misunderstood your point. If you're saying that I actually know there is no "verifiable evidence" for evolution, but I'm "pretending we do", then that brings me back to the question I asked you earlier (and you didn't answer): How do you explain the fact that the vast majority of the world's life scientists have recognized evolution as valid science for well over a century? Are they all liars? Are they participants in the largest and longest-running conspiracy in human history? Are they all just rather dim and bad at their jobs? Are they under some sort of magical Satanic spell?

I go where the evidence leads.

Even if it contradicts scripture? You would cast aside your faith if the right fossil were produced? Really?

Peace out.

So how about this.....can you describe for me how you came to reject evolution? What exactly did you study? Textbooks? Published papers? Did you attend evolutionary biology conferences? Did you take college-level courses in evolutionary biology?

 

[Astrophile]

That "fully formed" thing always puzzles me.

How would they picture some hypothetical thing
that is not fully formed?

I cannot make any sense of the idea.

Half a wing? A lung that does not work?

I sometimes wonder whether creationists imagine that, to reverse Haeckel's dictum, 'phylogeny repeats ontogeny', that is, that the evolutionary ancestors of animals looked like the modern embryonic forms of the living animals. Obviously the early-stage embryos of, for example, a horse or a human being or a chicken, are not fully-formed horses, humans or chickens, and perhaps creationists think that evolutionary ancestors were 'not fully-formed' in the same sense as embryos.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. That doesn't influence my belief.
If that were the case, the only persons not believing in ToE would be JWs. That's not the case. There are agnostics, and others who do not believe, or even take the Bible literally, who do not accept ToE.
If I were not a JW today, I would still not believe ToE, simply because I see no evidence for it. I see merely speculations and assumptions given in support of it.
It has nothing to do with the Bible.
I would be one of those skeptics - skeptical about the Bible, and skeptical about ToE.

I kinda understand why persons like to put everyone opposed to your views in one cart though. Not that it's right, but I understand.

This post tells us that at best you do not understand what is and what is not evidence. And you are not a skeptic. To be a skeptic you have to follow the evidence and you simply do not do that. Possibly because you do not understand the topic, possibly because reality threatens your beliefs and you cannot honestly face such a threat.

As I have pointed out in other areas, you want to fly and you still cannot crawl. How about beginning with the scientific method and the concept of scientific evidence?

 

[nPeace]

Well yeah.

I tend to believe it's not a coincidence that Orthodox Jews don't work on Saturdays.

I tend to believe it's not a coincidence that Muslims don't eat pork.

I tend to believe it's not a coincidence that the Amish don't drive cars.

And by the same token, I tend to believe it's not a coincidence that Jehovah's Witnesses don't recognize evolution as valid science.


Huh? There is abundant evidence showing that all Jehovah's Witnesses denying evolution is not mere coincidence, including your own posts.


Even if it contradicts scripture? You would cast aside your faith if the right fossil were produced? Really?


So how about this.....can you describe for me how you came to reject evolution? What exactly did you study? Textbooks? Published papers? Did you attend evolutionary biology conferences? Did you take college-level courses in evolutionary biology?

Your world view seems quite narrow to me.
I suggest you broaden it. Focusing on me will not help you.

WHY ATHEISTS CHANGE THEIR MIND: 8 COMMON FACTORS
How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
List of former atheists and agnostics
Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists
New evidence suggests many who struggle to accept aspects of evolution still exhibit trust in science overall – and that even some atheists have their doubts

over 1 in 3 of Canadian atheists, and nearly 1 in 5 UK atheists also felt human consciousness could not be explained by evolutionary processes

 

[Jose Fly]

Your world view seems quite narrow to me.
I suggest you broaden it. Focusing on me will not help you.

WHY ATHEISTS CHANGE THEIR MIND: 8 COMMON FACTORS
How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
List of former atheists and agnostics
Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists
New evidence suggests many who struggle to accept aspects of evolution still exhibit trust in science overall – and that even some atheists have their doubts

over 1 in 3 of Canadian atheists, and nearly 1 in 5 UK atheists also felt human consciousness could not be explained by evolutionary processes

Are you operating under the impression that I'm an atheist? If so, why?

And btw, are you going to keep ignoring the questions I've been asking you?

 

[nPeace]

Are you operating under the impression that I'm an atheist? If so, why?

And btw, are you going to keep ignoring the questions I've been asking you?

No.
What questions? If you are referring to the one you just asked, I have not ignored it. I gave an answer.
However, if you are not satisfied, perhaps you need to get rid of the elevated view you have of yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your world view seems quite narrow to me.
I suggest you broaden it. Focusing on me will not help you.

WHY ATHEISTS CHANGE THEIR MIND: 8 COMMON FACTORS
How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
List of former atheists and agnostics
Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists
New evidence suggests many who struggle to accept aspects of evolution still exhibit trust in science overall – and that even some atheists have their doubts

over 1 in 3 of Canadian atheists, and nearly 1 in 5 UK atheists also felt human consciousness could not be explained by evolutionary processes

Quite a bit of nonsense in just one post. Yes, in any large group such as Christians, atheists and other religions one will find converts from one group to another. You should be embarrassed to include Lee Strobel in your list. He used the most assbackward approach to "proving" Christianity that I have ever seen.

But the debate is not between atheism and evolution. Only the most ignorant or dishonest of Christians take Genesis literally. One does not need to be an atheist to accept the fact that life as we know it today is the product of evolution. Nor does one need to be a Christian to deny evolution. There are outliers in every large group. Their existence does not make a valid argument against a topic.

The problem with the evolution debate is that creationists do not and apparently cannot use science correctly in their opposition to evolution. Of course if one understands the science one can see that the only concept that is backed by scientific evidence is the theory of evolution. Denying evolution is akin to Flat Earthers that deny gravity. You would probably laugh at Flat Earthers, but there is not much difference between their beliefs and yours.

 

[Jose Fly]

No.

Then your last post that was mostly about conversion of atheists makes no sense.

What questions?

For the third time: How do you explain the fact that the vast majority of the world's life scientists have recognized evolution as valid science for well over a century? Are they all liars? Are they participants in the largest and longest-running conspiracy in human history? Are they all just rather dim and bad at their jobs? Are they under some sort of magical Satanic spell?

Also: Can you describe for me how you came to reject evolution? What exactly did you study? Textbooks? Published papers? Did you attend evolutionary biology conferences? Did you take college-level courses in evolutionary biology?

There are lots of others, but those two are enough for now.

However, if you are not satisfied, perhaps you need to get rid of the elevated view you have of yourself.

Hmmmm....and here I thought you said you were a "nice guy". Perhaps our conversation is making you uncomfortable, and that's why you've become a little snarky ("Believe whatever your highly intelligent, and all-knowing mind would have you believe").

If we are treading into subject matter that you'd rather not discuss, please say so and we'll stop.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.
What questions? If you are referring to the one you just asked, I have not ignored it. I gave an answer.
However, if you are not satisfied, perhaps you need to get rid of the elevated view you have of yourself.

When one is debating with one that denies science or abuses it at best a so called "elevated view" is only natural. It is not that creationists have lower intelligence than those that accept evolution. Rather it is the fact that in their failures to argue properly since apparently there is no valid argument against the theory they end up making their opponents appear to be brighter than they are even if that is not the case.

 

[nPeace]

Then your last post that was mostly about conversion of atheists makes no sense.


For the third time: How do you explain the fact that the vast majority of the world's life scientists have recognized evolution as valid science for well over a century? Are they all liars? Are they participants in the largest and longest-running conspiracy in human history? Are they all just rather dim and bad at their jobs? Are they under some sort of magical Satanic spell?

Also: Can you describe for me how you came to reject evolution? What exactly did you study? Textbooks? Published papers? Did you attend evolutionary biology conferences? Did you take college-level courses in evolutionary biology?

There are lots of others, but those two are enough for now.


Hmmmm....and here I thought you said you were a "nice guy". Perhaps our conversation is making you uncomfortable, and that's why you've become a little snarky ("Believe whatever your highly intelligent, and all-knowing mind would have you believe").

If we are treading into subject matter that you'd rather not discuss, please say so and we'll stop.

Sorry, but either you are not listening to anything I am saying, or you are not understanding, or you can't seem to take your mind out of your box, so I am really being nice to you, although it may seem harsh.
I tell you for instance why I reject the theory, and you tell me that you are too intelligent to believe me.
I gave you an answer for all your questions. You tell me you understand. Yet you come back with more questions that are basically the same questions put in different words.
Trust me, when I say, I am a nice guy, and actually being more than nice to you.

I don't mind having conversation with you, but when you are going to drill me with questions for answers you already received, I have to wonder...

 

[Jose Fly]

Sorry, but either you are not listening to anything I am saying, or you are not understanding, or you can't seem to take your mind out of your box, so I am really being nice to you, although it may seem harsh.

If that's the case then you can remedy it by answering the questions I asked.

I tell you for instance why I reject the theory, and you tell me that you are too intelligent to believe me.

Thus my question: Can you describe for me how you came to reject evolution? What exactly did you study? Textbooks? Published papers? Did you attend evolutionary biology conferences? Did you take college-level courses in evolutionary biology?

We're now on four times I've asked that question in one form or another, and you've yet to even acknowledge it let alone answer it. At some point here soon, the only reasonable conclusion to draw from your avoidance is that you're hiding something. I'd much rather not go there, so how about just answering?

I gave you an answer for all your questions.

You did? You answered the two questions I just posted to you? Can you link to the post(s) where you did so?

Trust me, when I say, I am a nice guy, and actually being more than nice to you.

I understand why those two questions I asked may be difficult for you. If the reality is you've not really studied evolutionary biology in any serious way, that's obviously very uncomfortable for you to admit in this forum. Likewise, if you attribute the 100+ years-long consensus among the world's life scientists to something like Satan or a deliberate conspiracy, that might be embarrassing for you to admit.

So again, if we're treading into uncomfortable territory here, just say so.

I don't mind having conversation with you, but when you are going to drill me with questions for answers you already received, I have to wonder...

I promise you that if you link to where you've already answered those two questions for me, I will apologize for my mistake, and I will read and consider your answers to the best of my ability.

I truly mean you no ill will.

 

[nPeace]

If that's the case then you can remedy it by answering the questions I asked.


Thus my question: Can you describe for me how you came to reject evolution? What exactly did you study? Textbooks? Published papers? Did you attend evolutionary biology conferences? Did you take college-level courses in evolutionary biology?

We're now on four times I've asked that question in one form or another, and you've yet to even acknowledge it let alone answer it. At some point here soon, the only reasonable conclusion to draw from your avoidance is that you're hiding something. I'd much rather not go there, so how about just answering?


You did? You answered the two questions I just posted to you? Can you link to the post(s) where you did so?


I understand why those two questions I asked may be difficult for you. If the reality is you've not really studied evolutionary biology in any serious way, that's obviously very uncomfortable for you to admit in this forum. Likewise, if you attribute the 100+ years-long consensus among the world's life scientists to something like Satan or a deliberate conspiracy, that might be embarrassing for you to admit.

So again, if we're treading into uncomfortable territory here, just say so.


I promise you that if you link to where you've already answered those two questions for me, I will apologize for my mistake, and I will read and consider your answers to the best of my ability.

I truly mean you no ill will.

I've had enough of that in the Watchmaker thread. It's not happening again. Something is wrong here, and I think it has to do with that box you're in. Did you realize that you didn't even understand this simple post. What does that say?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've had enough of that in the Watchmaker thread. It's not happening again. Something is wrong here, and I think it has to do with that box you're in. Did you realize that you didn't even understand this simple post. What does that say?

We understood that simple post. What you do not understand is why it fails.

 

[Jose Fly]

I've had enough of that in the Watchmaker thread. It's not happening again.

I understand. Answering those two questions is simply not an option for you, for what I think are obvious reasons.

Something is wrong here, and I think it has to do with that box you're in.

I'd ask what "box" you think I'm in, but I think I understand why you won't answer that either.

Did you realize that you didn't even understand this simple post. What does that say?

That it didn't make sense to me? I mean, most of that post was about converting atheists, which makes no sense because you said you weren't under the impression I was an atheist. It'd be like if I posted links to you about converting Hindus. Your first response would be "Um.....I'm not a Hindu", right?

Anyways, our exchange has served as an excellent illustration of why creationists always lose in court and have failed to make any impact on science. In those two arenas, you cannot ignore and dodge questions without consequence. You cannot hide behind "I already answered" while refusing to either show where you answered or restating that answer. Oh sure, you can do that all you want in internet forums and eventually the conversation will move on and most people will forget. But in court such behavior will be recorded and used against you, and in science your colleagues won't take you seriously (and you'll likely lose your job).

What I can't figure out is why, for you, engaging in such shady tactics is preferable to just discussing the topic honestly. If the truth is you haven't really studied evolutionary biology in a serious way, why is it such a big deal to say so? If you chalk up the long-running consensus to Satan or conspiracy, why not own that? If being a Jehovah's Witness really is the primary reason you reject evolution (in the same way being a Hindu is the primary reason someone doesn't eat beef), what's the big deal about saying so?

The only thing I can figure is that saying "I reject evolution because it conflicts with the revelations that God have given us through scripture and as a Jehovah's Witness God's word will always trump man's word for me" is embarrassing to you. And I find that extremely odd, because I would think you would seek to emphasize the importance of your deeply-held religious beliefs rather than minimize them.

But that's just me I guess.

 

[nPeace]

I understand. Answering those two questions is simply not an option for you, for what I think are obvious reasons.


I'd ask what "box" you think I'm in, but I think I understand why you won't answer that either.


That it didn't make sense to me? I mean, most of that post was about converting atheists, which makes no sense because you said you weren't under the impression I was an atheist. It'd be like if I posted links to you about converting Hindus. Your first response would be "Um.....I'm not a Hindu", right?

Anyways, our exchange has served as an excellent illustration of why creationists always lose in court and have failed to make any impact on science. In those two arenas, you cannot ignore and dodge questions without consequence. You cannot hide behind "I already answered" while refusing to either show where you answered or restating that answer. Oh sure, you can do that all you want in internet forums and eventually the conversation will move on and most people will forget. But in court such behavior will be recorded and used against you, and in science your colleagues won't take you seriously (and you'll likely lose your job).

What I can't figure out is why, for you, engaging in such shady tactics is preferable to just discussing the topic honestly. If the truth is you haven't really studied evolutionary biology in a serious way, why is it such a big deal to say so? If you chalk up the long-running consensus to Satan or conspiracy, why not own that? If being a Jehovah's Witness really is the primary reason you reject evolution (in the same way being a Hindu is the primary reason someone doesn't eat beef), what's the big deal about saying so?

The only thing I can figure is that saying "I reject evolution because it conflicts with the revelations that God have given us through scripture and as a Jehovah's Witness God's word will always trump man's word for me" is embarrassing to you. And I find that extremely odd, because I would think you would seek to emphasize the importance of your deeply-held religious beliefs rather than minimize them.

But that's just me I guess.

Your opinions have been duly noted.

 

[Jose Fly]

Your opinions have been duly noted.

And I thank you for your time. It's been very informative.

 

[nPeace]

And I thank you for your time. It's been very informative.

How about we make a deal.

You can ask me any questions provided...
1. When I supply the answer you explain what I am saying exactly, or what you understand, and say whether it answers your question or not.
2. You don't barrage me with multiple questions, and I don't do the same.
3. I get to question you, and we take it in turns.
4. We don't go any further until the question has been clearly answered.
5. You leave Jehovah's Witnesses out of it.

Did I leave anything out, which you would like to add?
Deal?

We can start Monday, if you agree.