Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Pogo]

If it is not relevant why bring it to the table? ...... You said that creationist can't explain....bla bla bla

Granted, if you quote an expert disagreeing with any of my comments you should trust the expert ..... But you won't provide such quotes are you ?


As far as I can judge
Sometimes fossils help evolution (transitional fossil , no chimeras etc)

And

Sometimes they harm evolution (big gaps out of place fossils etc)


I don't see a clear win for the TOE

Because that statement in itself demonstrates an ignorance of the theory and it's evidence.
You are a lousy judge, get an education so that you know what the ToE is.

 

[F1fan]

If it is not relevant why bring it to the table? ...... You said that creationist can't explain....bla bla bla

Because you are a creationist and bringing creationist nonsense to the table. We are responding. You don’t seem able or willing to understand.

Granted, if you quote an expert disagreeing with any of my comments you should trust the expert ..... But you won't provide such quotes are you ?

Why would your anti-science comments be something the well educated would agree with? The only reason that a person will post comments inconsistent with science is because they have some motivation that isn’t knowledge.

As far as I can judge
Sometimes fossils help evolution (transitional fossil , no chimeras etc)

And

Sometimes they harm evolution (big gaps out of place fossils etc)

More data and evidence doesn’t harm evolution. In 150 years it’s only helped evolution become a more certain explanation. Science becomes more accurate over time.

I don't see a clear win for the TOE

Because you have an ideological prejudice against science. We know it. Why don’t you?

 

[Valjean]

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 ?

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

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.

Biology posits mechanism; creationism, magic.

Biologists can explain and show evidence of the mechanisms claimed.
Creationists cite no mechanism. They claim only an intentional agent, with neither evidence of nor practical need for such an entity. Their claims are based on mythology and personal incredulity, stemming from ignorance of the mechanisms involved, the empirical evidence, and scientific methodology.
Their arguments are usually neither rational, fact-based, nor logical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand all that, but on average each intermediate would have had the same "problems" than land and flying mammals.... So if land and flying mammals overcome these obstacles, why didn't the intermediates?

What "obstacles" are you talking about?

Of all the thousands of intermediate organisms , I am pretty sure some lived in dry and more less optimal environments .... So where are these fossil? (I don't know is a valid answer)

Yes, but still if a bat dies on land it is going to be eaten by something. That is about it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

now your asking me to believe that "complex chemistry" came from nothing and nobody created it. I'm sorry, but I don't have that much faith in the "everything came from nothing" theory.

Faith isn't a scarce resource that one can run out of. Knowledge is, and when runs out of that, if he is willing to indulge in it, there is always more faith.

It's the theory of the big bang and theory of evolution, which both claim to have no cause.

Wrong.

A theory is just an unproven hypothesis

Wrong again.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with adaptation to ones environment.

Still wrong.

Everyone uses logic

Still wrong if by logic you mean valid reasoning rather than some rogue method for connecting premises to conclusions. Look at your last few comments.

The "who or what" represent the cause. So those two words cover the question regarding the cause, which science has no answers to anyway so it's a dead end subject.

You're a theist. You have no answers, just unfalsifiable guesses.

It's a closed minded system which relies on the ignorance of those who embrace it to survive.

But like I said, YOU'RE a theist. You've disqualified yourself as a potential critical thinker.

Those of us who reject those theories, do so because we only believe in evidence based, proven facts.

No, you don't. You're a theist. Your beliefs are unevidenced guesses. Stay in your own lane. Reason and evidence belong to the critical thinking empiricist. Religion is about myths, which is why it contributes nothing to the human fund of knowledge. Not a single useful idea comes from religions like yours. If I were wrong, you could falsify that claim with just one useful faith-based idea. But you can't.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

The point is that posits promoting or agreeing with the entire theory of evolution is argued pro and con. You go pro evolution while some others go against the presumptions of the theory.

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".

Whether I agree with what you consider pseudoscientific sites is immaterial. I don't know that I categorically agree, since I don't read those sites very often, although some of their statements make sense to me, but as I said, I do not refer to them very often. I realize that many agree with the theory of evolution logically. And many of those who do are not believers in a supreme Deity. Some are, which I find a conundrum at this point.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Religion is about myths, which is why it contributes nothing to the human fund of knowledge..

Do you know what a bigot is?
..and don't forget .. pride comes before a fall.

 

[YoursTrue]

Faith isn't a scarce resource that one can run out of. Knowledge is, and when runs out of that, if he is willing to indulge in it, there is always more faith.

Wrong.

Wrong again.

Still wrong.

Still wrong if by logic you mean valid reasoning rather than some rogue method for connecting premises to conclusions. Look at your last few comments.

You're a theist. You have no answers, just unfalsifiable guesses.

But like I said, YOU'RE a theist. You've disqualified yourself as a potential critical thinker.

No, you don't. You're a theist. Your beliefs are unevidenced guesses. Stay in your own lane. Reason and evidence belong to the critical thinking empiricist. Religion is about myths, which is why it contributes nothing to the human fund of knowledge. Not a single useful idea comes from religions like yours. If I were wrong, you could falsify that claim with just one useful faith-based idea. But you can't.

Some here have categorically stated that they believe in God AND the theory of evolution. Or perhaps a better description could be that they attend their respective houses of worship and also believe in evolution. I find that very interesting...

 

[muhammad_isa]

Some here have categorically stated that they believe in God AND the theory of evolution. Or perhaps a better description could be that they attend their respective houses of worship and also believe in evolution. I find that very interesting...

It is that the core theory of evolution does not conflict with the belief that G-d created the universe.

It is only people who take verses of Scripture literally, without full knowledge, that think otherwise.

 

[McBell]

Some here have categorically stated that they believe in God AND the theory of evolution. Or perhaps a better description could be that they attend their respective houses of worship and also believe in evolution. I find that very interesting...

When you think that your beliefs are the only valid beliefs and use said beliefs as the only valid standard in which to judge others, of course everyone else will fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point is that posits promoting or agreeing with the entire theory of evolution is argued pro and con. You go pro evolution while some others go against the presumptions of the theory.

What are you talking about? You are not making any sense.

Whether I agree with what you consider pseudoscientific sites is immaterial. I don't know that I categorically agree, since I don't read those sites very often, although some of their statements make sense to me, but as I said, I do not refer to them very often. I realize that many agree with the theory of evolution logically. And many of those who do are not believers in a supreme Deity. Some are, which I find a conundrum at this point.

Please, that is a falsehood on your part. I can show that they are pseudoscientific sites. If their arguments make sense to you that only shows that you are easily conned by people that you want to agree with. The last part of your post is not making sense again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some here have categorically stated that they believe in God AND the theory of evolution. Or perhaps a better description could be that they attend their respective houses of worship and also believe in evolution. I find that very interesting...

Most of those people realize that God is not a liar. Yet you regularly claim that he is one. You might think about that.

By the way, you verify that you know that I am right by refusing to learn the basics of science. You are trying to use the ostrich defense. You clearly do not think that your God is very intelligent.

 

[YoursTrue]

What are you talking about? You are not making any sense.

Please, that is a falsehood on your part. I can show that they are pseudoscientific sites. If their arguments make sense to you that only shows that you are easily conned by people that you want to agree with. The last part of your post is not making sense again.

I generally do not turn to what you consider "pseudoscientific" sites. I might go back to some of them now that you mention them and see what DOES make sense to me.

 

[YoursTrue]

Most of those people realize that God is not a liar. Yet you regularly claim that he is one. You might think about that.

By the way, you verify that you know that I am right by refusing to learn the basics of science. You are trying to use the ostrich defense. You clearly do not think that your God is very intelligent.

Now what you are saying does not make sense. If a "believer" accepts the theory of evolution, and -- goes to church or other houses of worship that use the Bible as a foundation piece, then yes -- the two ideas -- creation and evolution are in direct contradiction to one another.

 

[Charles Philips]

Like Ray Comfort who apologized for the video you posted before removing it from circulation and later claiming it was supposed to be a joke.

Is this how you do science, because it is not the way anybody else does it including God believing scientists of all faiths.

By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.[note 4]

Answers in Genesis-Creation Ministries International's Statement of Faith

Copyright AiG: copied for purposes of criticism or mockery (most likely mockery). The original document can be found on the official AiG website.[1] The same document exists at Creation Ministries International.[2]

rationalwiki.org

I don't recognize those "God believing scientists of all faiths" as their existence is an oxymoron and contradiction of terms. These scientists must be insane if they accept that each others god exists, as everyone of them has invented a different god which is opposed to all other gods.

The Holy Scriptures have been confirmed (by the worlds most respected historians) to be an accurate record of when time began and when it it end and everything that happens in between. Many have tried to destroy the record but they are all in hell now and everyone who tries to deny or destroy it will also be cast into hell.

 

[YoursTrue]

Most of those people realize that God is not a liar. Yet you regularly claim that he is one. You might think about that.

Ah, my dear SZ. Most of those people must say inadvertently by default and logic that God is a liar since (1) they believe that much of what is written is mythical, and (2) not true in any sense of the word. I won't go into detail now, but -- it's ok.

By the way, you verify that you know that I am right by refusing to learn the basics of science. You are trying to use the ostrich defense. You clearly do not think that your God is very intelligent.

I am not "refusing to learn the basics of science." Is there anything beyond conjecture that you can show that bacteria evolve to something other than bacteria? I read that a study in 2021 showed that when bacteria were exposed to antibiotics, their shape can change. Do I believe that? Yes, I do. "New research led by Carnegie Mellon University Assistant Professor of Physics Shiladitya Banerjee demonstrates how certain types of bacteria can adapt to long-term exposure to antibiotics by changing their shape." By changing their shape, some bacteria can grow more resilient to antibiotics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point is that posits promoting or agreeing with the entire theory of evolution is argued pro and con. You go pro evolution while some others go against the presumptions of the theory.

"Presumptions"? Perhaps you have an example.

Whether I agree with what you consider pseudoscientific sites is immaterial. I don't know that I categorically agree, since I don't read those sites very often, although some of their statements make sense to me, but as I said, I do not refer to them very often. I realize that many agree with the theory of evolution logically. And many of those who do are not believers in a supreme Deity. Some are, which I find a conundrum at this point.

If you could get over your fear it would not take you long to realize that they are pseudoscience sites. In fact let me ask you a question: If someone, for example if I said: "No matter what the evidence indicates the theory of evolution is true." Would that be an example of pseudoscience to me? Can you explain why?

 

[Charles Philips]

Again all talk and no substance,

For someone who whines so much about "opinion" you do not hesitate to prove that that is all you offer.

Again, you're all talk and no substance. If the poor paleontologists ever discovered the missing link it would instantly make world headlines and change the word forever. But we have been waiting 6000 and they have found a big fat ZERO!!!! of the millions of supposed missing links

 

[Charles Philips]

Yet another all talk no substance.

Rather difficult to take you seriously.

The charges are against your faith in pseudo science, so you need to defend the charges and show is this non existent evidence to float your theory. Otherwise it remains dead in the water

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah, my dear SZ. Most of those people must say inadvertently by default and logic that God is a liar since (1) they believe that much of what is written is mythical, and (2) not true in any sense of the word. I won't go into detail now, but -- it's ok.

how would that be calling God a liar? If you ever read the Bible it never claims to be literally true. It does not even imply that. Owning up to the obvious is being honest. It is not calling God a liar.

I am not "refusing to learn the basics of science." Is there anything beyond conjecture that you can show that bacteria evolve to something other than bacteria? I read that a study in 2021 showed that when bacteria were exposed to antibiotics, their shape can change. Do I believe that? Yes, I do. "New research led by Carnegie Mellon University Assistant Professor of Physics Shiladitya Banerjee demonstrates how certain types of bacteria can adapt to long-term exposure to antibiotics by changing their shape." By changing their shape, some bacteria can grow more resilient to antibiotics.

But you are ignorant of the basics of science and now you are breaking the Ninth Commandment again by using terms about others that you cannot justify. When you claim that something is "conjecture" that is an attack on others and puts the burden of proof upon you. And yes, you not only do not understand the basics of science. Your own posts, such as this one of yours demonstrate that fact.

Cherry picking one science article does not help you. Even worse you decided to accept an example of evolution in progress. So weird.