Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Dan From Smithville]

Look how you misrepresent what others say, and what they say about valid science. I said educated people defer to what experts report. Siri is irrelevant. And you insult people looking for knowledge. And you diminish knowledge to mere belief, which is your contempt for science and knowledge.

All the things you claimed above are beliefs.

Wow, what chaos of mind.

Try hitting your hand with a hammer and believing it isn't a real experience. Sorry but everything we experience is reality. Even illusions, while the content not real, have real effects on our bodies and mind.

False. This illustrates your ignorance of science and the scientific method. The method and ethics in science is why we can trust the results. The work itself is statistically true. YOU are a believer when you reject the expertise of scientists and their results.

Like calculus? Good luck.

I was about to say I wonder if you will get a little sidestep, but I realized the real question is what form will it take.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And most animals get very little fluoride.

...Later

I forgot about this little diversion to avoid the actual point of the post you are responding to. The point wasn't about animal nutrition. That was an example. You completely avoided the point with this response. Why do you do that?

And you just made another claim that you won't bother to ever support. Of course, you may to show me up. But you will be providing support for a claim that was used as a diversion. Like shooting the pig because it saw the fox eat the chicken.

 

[John53]

I forgot about this little diversion to avoid the actual point of the post you are responding to. The point wasn't about animal nutrition. That was an example. You completely avoided the point with this response. Why do you do that?

And you just made another claim that you won't bother to ever support. Of course, you may to show me up. But you will be providing support for a claim that was used as a diversion. Like shooting the pig because it saw the fox eat the chicken.

I'm not sure what we're expecting. He has admitted in the past he doesn't answer questions and goes off point deliberately because he only posts for lurkers

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not sure what we're expecting. He has admitted in the past he doesn't answer questions and goes off point deliberately because he only posts for lurkers

Those poor lurkers. They aren't going to learn anything. I hope that some of them are listening to those that aren't proposing a pseudoscience about mythical ancient beavers that farm fish for food and speak a language that no one understands using a science that isn't science but is better than science. Or so it is said, but never supported or explained. Probably because it is in a language no one understands except maybe ducks.

Duck Season!!!!

 

[John53]

Those poor lurkers. They aren't going to learn anything. I hope that some of them are listening to those that aren't proposing a pseudoscience about mythical ancient beavers that farm fish for food and speak a language that no one understands using a science that isn't science but is better than science or so it is said, but never supported or explained. Probably because it is in a language no one understands except maybe ducks.

Duck Season!!!!

Birds rule rabbits drool.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Birds rule rabbits drool.

That is likely true. Birds don't produce much saliva.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Birds rule rabbits drool.

I'm still laughing at this!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not sure what we're expecting. He has admitted in the past he doesn't answer questions and goes off point deliberately because he only posts for lurkers

A world view composed of a smattering of trivial bits and pieces of history, science, philosophy, biblical stories, unsupported assertions of an imagined history, empty assertions and so forth is a syncretism that functionally seems little different than the standard creationist position of an absolutist, literal interpretation of the Bible. It is completely reliant on the circular view that it is its own evidence the same way that creationists position their views. There is the same denial and rejection of learning. The avoidance of questions. Empty assertions. A lack of supporting evidence. Massive reliance on logical fallacies. The only real difference is in the source of the view. I think it can be considered a creationist view or variant creationist view based on that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A world view composed of a smattering of trivial bits and pieces of history, science, philosophy, biblical stories, unsupported assertions of an imagined history, empty assertions and so forth is a syncretism that functionally seems little different than the standard creationist position of an absolutist, literal interpretation of the Bible. It is completely reliant on the circular view that it is its own evidence the same way that creationists position their views. There is the same denial and rejection of learning. The avoidance of questions. Empty assertions. A lack of supporting evidence. Massive reliance on logical fallacies. The only real difference is in the source of the view. I think it can be considered a creationist view or variant creationist view based on that.

And don't forget the baseless sense of overwhelming authority or the declarations of victory without reason.

You're right. I did forget that. How could I? Forgive me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A world view composed of a smattering of trivial bits and pieces of history, science, philosophy, biblical stories, unsupported assertions of an imagined history, empty assertions and so forth is a syncretism that functionally seems little different than the standard creationist position of an absolutist, literal interpretation of the Bible. It is completely reliant on the circular view that it is its own evidence the same way that creationists position their views. There is the same denial and rejection of learning. The avoidance of questions. Empty assertions. A lack of supporting evidence. Massive reliance on logical fallacies. The only real difference is in the source of the view. I think it can be considered a creationist view or variant creationist view based on that.

You sure seem to like to mention empty assertions. You repeated that three times.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You sure seem to like to mention empty assertions. You repeated that three times.

True, but I think it is warranted due to the incessant appearance of empty assertions that are the main mechanism of those positions.

Don't get upset with me for posting layers like a fossil record.

 

[YoursTrue]

Those poor lurkers. They aren't going to learn anything. I hope that some of them are listening to those that aren't proposing a pseudoscience about mythical ancient beavers that farm fish for food and speak a language that no one understands using a science that isn't science but is better than science. Or so it is said, but never supported or explained. Probably because it is in a language no one understands except maybe ducks.

Duck Season!!!!

Learn anything? You mean like the diversions coming to the big bang maybe coming from nothing?

 

[YoursTrue]

True, but I think it is warranted due to the incessant appearance of empty assertions that are the main mechanism of those positions.

Don't get upset with me for posting layers like a fossil record.

If only there were video recordings of transmigration of genes forming different species. Then maybe we'd see. You think? But naturally the answer from evolutionists would be, oh... there's not enough time to show that...happened before the sapien class figured cameras plus.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not sure what we're expecting. He has admitted in the past he doesn't answer questions and goes off point deliberately because he only posts for lurkers

You mean like some evolutionists saying that others are so uneducated in response?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean like some evolutionists saying that others are so uneducated in response?

Please, don't try to pretend that the creationists here are any sort of martyrs here. That won't fly.. Yes, they are rather ignorant and uneducated. But people have quite often offered to help them to learn, but they never try to learn on their own and they never take anyone up on their offers. The ignorance and lack of education is their fault. And when they are repeatedly shown to be wrong it is arrogance to act as if they are some sort of victim.

 

[cladking]

Another whole page deflecting from a simple question about a minor point!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is what passes for "discussion" among believers. I've answered all of those questions at least a dozen times and a few of them far more. Maybe the question needs to be in a larger font and another color to get a response.

If the fit survive and breed fitter individuals then why isn't each generation fitter than the last?

 

[cladking]

If the fit survive and breed fitter individuals then why isn't each generation fitter than the last?

Believers can't see such inconsistencies. Believers don't see evidence that contradict their models and beliefs because they interpret everything only in terms of them. It's the nature of our species and how and why we reason in circles. It is caused by abstract language that has been used for 4000 years. Nothing can break it except experiment and experiment does not support Darwin or the ToE.

 

[MikeF]

Another whole page deflecting from a simple question about a minor point!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is what passes for "discussion" among believers. I've answered all of those questions at least a dozen times and a few of then far more. Maybe the question needs to be in a larger font and another color to get a response.

If fit survive and breed fitter individuals then why isn't each generation fitter than the last? I

I do not believe that is what is suggested or observed. Existing organisms breed subsequent organisms that vary from the parent organisms to some degree. The particular environment and circumstances in which that occurs determines whether the newly breed organisms are adequately fit enough to survive and breed the next generation. Environments change over time, perpetually. The earth is not a fixed and static ball in space. Either this degree of perpetual variation in generations allows subsequent generations to remain adequately fit to the ever changing environment, fit to exploit some new environment, or neither, in which case the line dies out.

So no, there is no design for a species to continually breed to be fitter, because that begs fitter for what? The world is ever changing. The goal of all of life seems to be continually different such that something remains adequately sufficient to survive and breed the next generation.

 

[cladking]

OK, for the Siri geniuses I even asked the AI (artificial idiocy) program;

"This is a great question! The answer is that evolution is not a linear process. While it is true that the fittest individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation, it does not necessarily mean that each generation will be fitter than the last. This is because evolution is driven by random mutations in the genetic code, which can lead to genetic drift and bottlenecks in populations. These factors can cause a loss of genetic diversity and result in the emergence of less fit individuals over time 1. Additionally, environmental factors such as climate change, habitat destruction, and pollution can also have a significant impact on the fitness of a population 1. Therefore, while natural selection does favor the fittest individuals, it does not guarantee that each generation will be fitter than the last."

Of course this is highly illogical so if anyone wants to present this idiocy as the answer I'll happily rip it a one.

 

[cladking]

So no, there is no design for a species to continually breed to be fitter, because that begs fitter for what? The world is ever changing.

So survival of the fittest has a 50:50 chance of breeding less fit individuals?