Evolution My ToE

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no idea what you are talking about... and since you claimed that I claimed something that you can't even point out what I claimed, I can only conclude that you make up stuff, and then make false claims.
That seems to me, a deliberate attempt to distract from the information presented to you. Once you do then, you then feel comfortable to continue.
That's a dishonest tactic... imo.


We? I assume you must be speaking for yourself.
That doesn't detract from the fact that you made false claims.

That is ironic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And what claim is that?

All of them have been refuted. Numerous times. It is a ritual you make everyone go through.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Even you?

I am confused.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You could try to be polite for once. You could also try to listen to others.

Do you not understand how your Gish Gallop was refuted twice?

Sure twice this time, but with practice and lots of repetition, I bet it can be refuted as much as 10 times before it is shelved to be brought back up later as If it has never before been seen again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How is Goldschmidt different to other scientists?
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study.

Di you just picked out the smaller portions to look at. There is more.

What?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Stephen is not the one speaking at 1:01. The liar is.

Is he speaking or isn't he? Which is it? Do you know him personally? Would he lie about that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is there a talk to the palm emoji. Or is that rudeness...

Why ask a question that has never been a consideration for you before?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is ironic.

He did a Gish Gallop. He did not even pay attention to the quotes he grabbed from creationist websites. I refuted one of them, but it appears he copied and pasted without reading or understanding so the refutation went over his head. He had no clue as to what I was posting about because he did not understand his own post.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I really should. Try talking to a door some time.

Would a mirror help? In understanding what a Gish Gallup is and how it is a form of deceitful tactic to swamp other people in a debate or disussion. Like your quote mining, it is used in place of factual and rational points of discussion by those that have none.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No, it doesn't take any faith. It's just what the evidence indicates. If the evidence were to change, or new evidence were to come to light, then we'd go with that.
Unlike religious beliefs, acceptance of evolutionary claims aren't hinged on receiving eternal life after death or getting into some god's good favour or anything and so they can be amended according to whatever the evidence indicates. We're not stucking having to believe anything that the evidence doesn't indicate, as some who adhere to ancient texts seem to have to do.

What does the 'evidence indicate' with regard to the *yes, I'm going to ask it* Cambrian fossil record?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hmm.
I said everyone on earth, and somehow left out myself. I'm getting a 'Twilight Zone' flashback.

See if this helps.
Each of the words "evolution", "fact" and "theory" has several meanings in different contexts. Evolution means change over time, as in stellar evolution. In biology it refers to observed changes in organisms, to their descent from a common ancestor, and at a technical level to a change in gene frequency over time; it can also refer to explanatory theories (such as Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection) which explain the mechanisms of evolution.

It helps if persons would be more specific, because the papers are specific, when it discusses the theory.

So, instead of answering the question honestly and directly you are admitting to using a confusing ploy to disrupt the discussion. We are discussing biological evolution on a thread that YOU started about biological evolution. How did you come to think this thread is about some other subject? Your response does not make any sense. It sounds like another tactic employed by a person that recognizes they do not have the facts and reason on their side.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What does the 'evidence indicate' with regard to the *yes, I'm going to ask it* Cambrian fossil record?

Shouldn't you know, since you claim it refuted evolution? Considering your claim, I expect you to be a local expert in the Cambrian fossils and how they show that the theory of evolution is incorrect. As well as apoptosis and sexual selection. No links to science made up by the church either. Your clear and unambiguous explanations in your own words.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He did a Gish Gallop. He did not even pay attention to the quotes he grabbed from creationist websites. I refuted one of them, but it appears he copied and pasted without reading or understanding so the refutation went over his head. He had no clue as to what I was posting about because he did not understand his own post.

I think his ignorance of science, evidence, logical fallacies, communication, debate, discussion and arrogance are very well established. Ironic, considering his efforts have been the driving force in that establishment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What does the 'evidence indicate' with regard to the *yes, I'm going to ask it* Cambrian fossil record?

is it too much to ask you to answer questions that people ask you? Considering you have made claims that others do not answer your questions, I would think that you would be enthusiastic to set a positive example to point out and encourage others to follow. It would be the right thing to do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He did a Gish Gallop. He did not even pay attention to the quotes he grabbed from creationist websites. I refuted one of them, but it appears he copied and pasted without reading or understanding so the refutation went over his head. He had no clue as to what I was posting about because he did not understand his own post.

It is a disappointing reality that these discussions always end up following Weitzenhoffer's Law.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a disappointing reality that these discussions always end up following Weitzenhoffer's Law.

Okay, I cannot find that one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Okay, I cannot find that one.

You know it. It is just not usually presented under the originators name.

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Okay, I cannot find that one.

Just once, I would love to have a creationist give the honest response that they have no valid scientific objection to evolution, but simply reject it from belief and because their church says they have to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How can evolution be demonstrably verified? (It can't be.)

Evolution theory makes an almost countless amount of testable predictions.
Each of these can be tested. Every successfull test serves as a confirmation of the theory.

Every genome sequences, every fossil found,... serves as a test of the theory.
We don't find mammals with feathers. We don't find rabbits in pre-cambrian rock. We don't find genomes that break the phylogenetic nested hierarchies.

 

[McBell]

Okay, I cannot find that one.

He is referring to Pigeon Chess
Though I can honestly say I have never before heard it referred to as Weitzenhoffer's Law.