Evolution My ToE

[nPeace]

In the case of this thread, it honestly looks like you are the bully with your attitude toward others who disagree with you. If you find that someone is wrong in their views or knowledge, instead of bully them, why not teach them in a civilized manner without making comments only to hurt them.

Put your self in their shoes, where you are the one being bullied for everything you said, How would that make you feel?

There is the key - "who disagree with you".

 

[tas8831]

In the case of this thread, it honestly looks like you are the bully with your attitude toward others who disagree with you.

OK.

If you find that someone is wrong in their views or knowledge, instead of bully them, why not teach them in a civilized manner without making comments only to hurt them.

Wow, never thought of that. Great idea.

Wait - no. I have tried that. For years.

Making comments 'only to hurt them'? I don't do that, unless in response to name-calling and the like. It might be even more constructive if people would stop making posts filled with things they do not understand - things that they have just copied from some other source and accepted as true solely because they like where it points to - and then getting angry when what they've posted is debunked.

Put your self in their shoes, where you are the one being bullied for everything you said, How would that make you feel?

In the context of forums like this, it would make me think that maybe I should re-examine the things I was posting and wonder why so many other people are telling me (and showing me) that I am wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the case of this thread, it honestly looks like you are the bully with your attitude toward others who disagree with you. If you find that someone is wrong in their views or knowledge, instead of bully them, why not teach them in a civilized manner without making comments only to hurt them.

Put your self in their shoes, where you are the one being bullied for everything you said, How would that make you feel?

There is only so much hypocrisy and obtuseness that a reasonable person can handle. Tell me, do you not see the endless dishonesty of creationists?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is the key - "who disagree with you".

No, the key is who can honestly and properly support their claims.

 

[tas8831]

There is the key - "who disagree with you".

The real key is - 'people who will pretend to know more than they do, misrepresent information provided, and even lie about it in order to prop up their beliefs'.

Like you did in this thread:

The Miracle of Water.

Unwilling to allow that you might be wrong about something, you just went on misrepresenting the material I had provided - all so you would not have to admit error.

Note the flow of events in that thread:

You claim real science is all about interpretations.

I ask:

What is your interpretation of this:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.​

Your snarky holier-than-thou-even-though-you-have-no-idea-what-the-science-is response:

There is no need for interpretation here. It simply means what it says.
Blah blah blah provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships.

So in my simple way of putting it...
"By looking at this data - data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice, we can examine it along with the trees we drew up, and see what they can tell us.​

My analysis:

FAIL #1 - misrepresentation of the process of phylogenetic tree reconstruction

The data was used to PRODUCE the trees - the trees are not 'drawn up' first. You really are this clueless about the evidence that you imply sufficient knowledge of to dismiss?

The lineages of those 24 strains of mouse are KNOWN. The methods of reconstructing (not drawing, not guessing, not imagining) those trees were tested using genetic data to see whether these methods would reproduce the known relationships.

Guess you missed that, despite claiming "There is no need for interpretation here. It simply means what it says."​

You probably should have stopped there​

And your amazing, insightful reply to this - rather than admit you were wrong?

A series of dictionary definitions of a few of the words in my post, in some lame, desperate attempt to save face.


You didn't even TRY to rebut what I had written, which I explained here.

Then you ran off.... As usual.

Pathetic.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In the case of this thread, it honestly looks like you are the bully with your attitude toward others who disagree with you. If you find that someone is wrong in their views or knowledge, instead of bully them, why not teach them in a civilized manner without making comments only to hurt them.

Put your self in their shoes, where you are the one being bullied for everything you said, How would that make you feel?

If you take a careful look at those types of threads, you will see that often the first person to start raising accusations and "bully" others are the creationists. As someone who goes out of his way to be polite and reasonable, I find myself met with obfuscation, evasion, insults and dishonesty constantly on these forums. I have had numerous outright lies told about me, as well. And yet I have never made a post purely to hurt anyone.

 

[Spirit of Light]

There is only so much hypocrisy and obtuseness that a reasonable person can handle. Tell me, do you not see the endless dishonesty of creationists?

No. They have their understanding of the world, just like Atheists or religious people have their view of the world and how it started.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What do you gain from humiliating someone? how come your view is right and everyone else is wrong

Again, read these threads, and you will find that the vast majority of the scoffing comes from creationists who assert that their opinions, over the overwhelming majority of scientists is correct. Not only that, they repeatedly often assert things such as that their position is the OBVIOUSLY correct one, or that there is literally NO evidence for evolutionary theory. They insult the intelligence and honesty of not only posters on here, but the entire scientific community.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No. They have their understanding of the world, just like Atheists or religious people have their view of the world and how it started.

The difference is that when that different understanding veers into outright dishonesty. When they have to protect those views by lying, avoiding questions or making baseless claims, they should be called on it. I've lost count of the number of times I have had to correct the same posters on things that they claim evolution says that it doesn't, and no matter how many times I do it they keep asserting it. This is not just a difference of opinion - it is actual, knowing dishonesty.

Having your own beliefs is fine. Lying about others is not.

 

[Spirit of Light]

If you take a careful look at those types of threads, you will see that often the first person to start raising accusations and "bully" others are the creationists. As someone who goes out of his way to be polite and reasonable, I find myself met with obfuscation, evasion, insults and dishonesty constantly on these forums. I have had numerous outright lies told about me, as well. And yet I have never made a post purely to hurt anyone.

There will always be people we come across who see things differently than ourselves, but how we react to their claims and view does not need to be of a nature that hurts. And you will find people of all walks of life that can both be right sometimes and wrong other times. Sometimes creationists are wrong, sometimes others are wrong and creationists right.

 

[tas8831]

No. They have their understanding of the world, just like Atheists or religious people have their view of the world and how it started.

But apparently only 'atheists' have actual evidence. nPeace and his cohort rely almost entirely on circular reasoning and simply dismissing such evidence, then acting shocked when their errors are documented.

 

[tas8831]

Sometimes creationists are wrong, sometimes others are wrong and creationists right.

Show me one example in this thread then, in which the creationist was right and others wrong.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There will always be people we come across who see things differently than ourselves, but how we react to their claims and view does not need to be of a nature that hurts. And you will find people of all walks of life that can both be right sometimes and wrong other times. Sometimes creationists are wrong, sometimes others are wrong and creationists right.

Again, we aren't talking about difference of perspectives here, we are talking about knowing misrepresentation of facts.

Do you believe we should be honest, or is it justified to knowingly lie about things you don't want to be true?

 

[Spirit of Light]

But apparently only 'atheists' have actual evidence. nPeace and his cohort rely almost entirely on circular reasoning and simply dismissing such evidence, then acting shocked when their errors are documented.

Most of the Atheists (not everyone) only use scientific evidence as their proves of that they are right, Those who study or cultivate religion or possible creation theory in a spiritual way, will start to understand that te existence is more than only the physical realm, and it is here where the trouble starts since a non-physical realm is a today impossible to measure with scientific equipment, then they claim that believers in creation or in religious views must be wrong.

And to discuss back and forth without trying to understand the other part would lead to what happen here in this thread.

 

[tas8831]

When they have to protect those views by lying, avoiding questions or making baseless claims, they should be called on it. I've lost count of the number of times I have had to correct the same posters on things that they claim evolution says that it doesn't, and no matter how many times I do it they keep asserting it. This is not just a difference of opinion - it is actual, knowing dishonesty.

A few off the top of my head, as demonstrated on this very forum:

- Miller set out to create life
- Darwin influenced Hitler
- there is no evidence for evolution
- abiogenesis and evolution are intimately linked
- evolution evidence is all speculation and guessing
- Scadding proved vestigials are not real
- there is a thing called the "Eve gene" that only human females have
- Haeckel's drawings are still in textbooks as 'proof of evolution'
- evolutionists use technobabble/jargon to confuse the masses

etc.etc.etc.

And as you indicate - the same people keep making the same claims after having them proven false or misleading. Caught @Hockeycowboy just the other day making the Haeckel argument after I had already debunked it - to him - in March.

 

[tas8831]

Most of the Atheists (not everyone) only use scientific evidence as their proves of that they are right, Those who study or cultivate religion or possible creation theory in a spiritual way, will start to understand that te existence is more than only the physical realm, and it is here where the trouble starts since a non-physical realm is a today impossible to measure with scientific equipment, then they claim that believers in creation or in religious views must be wrong.

And to discuss back and forth without trying to understand the other part would lead to what happen here in this thread.

So not even 1 example.

Got it.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Again, we aren't talking about difference of perspectives here, we are talking about knowing misrepresentation of facts.

Do you believe we should be honest, or is it justified to knowingly lie about things you don't want to be true?

In the physical realm, truth is relative. because things are impermanence, you can not only base an answer on science when someone believe in something higher, one must also look at what the higher is or what realm it is in

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In the physical realm, truth is relative. because things are impermanence, you can not only base an answer on science when someone believe in something higher, one must also look at what the higher is or what realm it is in

When X says Y, is it honest to keep asserting that X actually says Z, even when everybody keeps pointing out to you that X says Y?

Is it a matter of "relative truth" for me to assert that the Bible is a two-page pamphlet describing Jesus having an amorous encounter with a wild boar? Is that true?

If I go around saying "Every Christian in the world believes that dogs are made of fennel" and that I keep being told by Christians that I should "jump off a bridge", am I being honest?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. They have their understanding of the world, just like Atheists or religious people have their view of the world and how it started.

That is simply false. There are standards when dealing with certain areas of thought. In the sciences one uses scientific evidence. The use and acceptance of this has nothing to do with one's religious views. If one cannot deal with that then it is simply best not to discuss that which is above and beyond a person. And this is not an unfair demand. The concept of scientific evidence is very easy to understand and is very fair. It keeps dishonest people from saying "there is no evidence" when there is. Creationists seem to know that. They run away from the concept as if it were Satan himself.

 

[Spirit of Light]

When X says Y, is it honest to keep asserting that X actually says Z, even when everybody keeps pointing out to you that X says Y?

Is it a matter of "relative truth" for me to assert that the Bible is a two-page pamphlet describing Jesus having an amorous encounter with a wild boar? Is that true?

Comments like you made now have no value to answer. None of us can know if Jesus ever met a wild boar. so the answer is nobody can say yes or no.