Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Subduction Zone]

"For a long time scientists figured that the bones are so small because they are vestigial, a shrunken evolutionary remnant from an ancestor that once walked on land. But now scientists have discovered that the tiny bones may actually play a huge role in whale reproduction"

Promiscuous Whales Make Good Use of Their Pelvises

Hips don’t lie: Whale pelvic bones are not vestigial but instead evolved to help the marine mammals maneuver better during sex

www.smithsonianmag.com

Vestigial does not mean "useless". It means that they can no longer use them for what their ancestors used them for. Have you seen any whales use them for walking recently?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well Sean Carol doest make the nonsense argument that you are making
"That the argument assumes that the values could be different "

What are you talking about? You clearly do not understand how he refuted the argument for the expansion rate by showing that it could not have been any other value.

 

[Pogo]

Similar to the universe could have come from -- nothing...OR it could have come from nothing but gravity -- or it could have come from a powerful mass that exploded...

Yup similar in that a lot of low information people will misread it and then spout their silly misunderstanding as evidence that they know more than the educated that attempt to correct them.

 

[leroy]

You do not get to define your own terms. That is not how language works.

Since you cant refute my actual argument, you whant to turn this in to and endless discussion on semantics. ... I will not fall in that game

 

[leroy]

What are you talking about? You clearly do not understand how he refuted the argument for the expansion rate by showing that it could not have been any other value.

You are mixing 2 arguments

Your argument is that the FT argument assumes that the values could be different ..... so support that assertion

Even if Carol is correct, he is not doing anything to help your argument

 

[Mock Turtle]

Can you explain why evolution is the only area of science that constantly engages religion? This is a religious war, due to black box darkness causing the imagination to fill in the blanks, all with low evidence standards. The word "risk", can be one in a million, but can manipulate and be used to stampede the other 999,999. Black box games is why science has a data standard.

Quite simply, because religions often espouse the view that God created humans as being separate - and being His special project - so anything that connects humans to all other life, as evolution rightfully does, is obviously a no-no for many religious beliefs. So this is their issue, not that of evolution or science if they cannot accept the good evidence that shows this.

 

[YoursTrue]

LOL! You do not get to claim "strawman" just because you are using an incorrect version of the argument.

What's the argument? That evolution is true without doubt?

 

[McBell]

and your commitment to defend Pogo reveals that you are a fanatic atheist willing to defend your tribe even when they are obviously wrong

That you are flat out wrong more often that you are tight is no surprise that you even get this wrong.
But hey, at least you are consistent, right?

how can i have an honest discssion with @Pogo if everytime i make a comment he responds with an unrelated claim? and even more important, why do you condone this behavior when it is clearly a dishonest tactic to evade diffucult questions and challneges?

How can @Pogo or anyone else for that matter, have a honest conversation when the one they are trying to have a conversation with knows less than nothing about the topic trying to be discussed?

You have proven beyond doubt you do not know what you are talking about.
Even worse, you flat out refuse to learn anything.
Thus like all the creationists before you, you merely compound the problem.
[sarcasm]
But you're right, it has to be everyone else, not you...
[/sarcasm]

Atheism might no be a religion, but some atheist act like fanatics in a cult.

I agree.
Though I have not seen one in this thread.
The only fanatical cult acting members in this thread are all creationists.

 

[Pogo]

What's the argument? That evolution is true without doubt?

Well nobody has come up with any evidence to the contrary, so yes it is considered true barring unreasonable doubt.
As we see here, there are many unreasonable and unreasoned doubts and doubters.

 

[McBell]

One would think that with the so-called transitional fossils there would be more substance to the fossil record, but really there are not. There were no video cameras following fish around to show over the said millions of years how fish grew mutated legs and eventually flopped out on land and became land-dwellers.

How many video cameras were following the stories of the Bible?
Now if you think that question is ridiculous, you should be able to figure out why when you present it is also ridiculous, since they are both ridiculous for the exact same reason.

 

[leroy]

You have proven beyond doubt you do not know what you are talking about.

Then quote my words and explain/show that I am wrong ....... Can you do that ? No because you are just making things up ....


I won't add more words because I don't want to receive a comment from the moderators.

 

[leroy]

Bats, the only truly flying land mammal fossils are rare.

Due to the nature of powered flight, bats are pretty fragile animals. One needs to be relatively lightweight to be a successful flier, therefore most bats are relatively small and delicate creatures. As you can imagine, animals that are fragile and airborne have a relatively low chance of fossilizing. Adding to this, bats also tend to live and roost in caves and trees which are areas that are not very conducive for fossilization. Due to these factors, fossil bats are pretty rare, so this was a pretty cool discovery.

That is news to me, I didn't know that bats fossils are rare


(I admit my mistake in the previous post)

 

[F1fan]

Take for example all the intermediates between land and flying mammals...... Consider all the transitional species + the evolutionary dead ends.

Isn't it strange and unpredicted that few if any intermediate fossils have been found ?

Not at all. There are many multiple millions of fossils. For something to be fossilized it requires certain conditions, like being buried in material that lacks oxygen. Plus it’s nit as if the whole planet has been explored yet. What has been discovered is amazing, and more fossils are being found as can be funded and experts available to do the work.

Creationism is a failure on its own, but it’s a bigger failure because so many creationists expect science to have all the data abd evidence to a degree that is unreasonable. Creationists demand of science so much more than they can even dream of providing as evidence. Creationism is corrupt and fraud. You associating with it impugns your character.

Both flying and land mammals are common in the fossil record .... So what makes the intermediates so scare?

Here’s an example of the corruption because you creationists can’t offer any fragments of evidence yet demand some unreasonable level of evidence that you won’t accept anyway. And that’s due to the toxic influence of creationism in Christianity.

The answer is we don't know, but this is not a big of a deal. We still have strong evidence for evolution........if you would suggest a different answer please share it.

The gaps in the fossil record are not as severe as the corrupt creationist narrative suggests. The pattern and consistency of evolution is so well documented that the gaps are easily explained by the data in related sciences.

 

[McBell]

Then quote my words and explain/show that I am wrong ....... Can you do that ? No because you are just making things up ....

This has been done numerous times by other members with the exact same result, you handwaving it away, denying it happened, and or ignoring it.
Given your track record of not acknowledging it, why would any one ever bother presenting it to you again?

I won't add more words because I don't want to receive a comment from the moderators.

I commend your level of self control.
Took me quite a while to there myself.

 

[YoursTrue]

How many video cameras were following the stories of the Bible?
Now if you think that question is ridiculous, you should be able to figure out why when you present it is also ridiculous, since they are both ridiculous for the exact same reason.

I don't think the question is ridiculous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's the argument? That evolution is true without doubt?

No, you have not been following the argument. @leroy has been using a personal version of the Fine Tuna Argument (that is particularly fitting because his version is very fishy). He gets angry when he is told that what he is using is a rather different argument that is essentially pointless.

Here is what some believers cannot understand. When they use a rather poor argument for their deity and it is easily shown to be wrong that does not refute God. It only refutes their poor argument.

Now what is ironic about your post is that far too many creationists use sources that are pseudoscientific because anyone that works for them has to swear that no matter what the evidence is that the creation myths of Genesis are true. You cannot say that and claim to be scientific. That is pseudoscience. To be scientific one has to follow the evidence. And right now all of the scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution and only the theory of evolution largely due to the cowardice and of course incompetence of creation "scientists".

 

[McBell]

I don't think the question is ridiculous.

Cool.
So how many cameras were follow the Biblical stories and where is the footage?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think the question is ridiculous.

Okay then. How many video cameras followed the stories of the Bible? Are the videos loaded up on YouTube or some other source?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cool.
So how many cameras were follow the Biblical stories and where is the footage?

Oh poop! Beaten to the punch!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then quote my words and explain/show that I am wrong ....... Can you do that ? No because you are just making things up ....


I won't add more words because I don't want to receive a comment from the moderators.

Everyone knows that would be a futile exercise on our part.