Irony of the evolutionary belief

[YoursTrue]

We do not need to see it to understand it. The concepts that explain how that happens can be tested. I know how and why water gets up into clouds and what holds that mass up there. You probably do not. No God need apply.

No big bang need apply either. As Dr. Hawking said...maybe gravity did it. Thanks, you guys have been great teachers...

 

[Subduction Zone]

No big bang need apply either. As Dr. Hawking said...maybe gravity did it. Thanks, you guys have been great teachers...

You misunderstand. The Big Bang is part of gravity doing it.

 

[leroy]

@Subduction Zone @Pogo @McBell @F1fan etc.

Once again you have the opportunity to learn a lesson……………

1 I am claiming that user Tag is wrong

2 I will quote his exact words

3 I will explain why is he wrong

The same courtesy is expected every time you claim that I am wrong.

How does that prediction follow? What is special about design that in a design model, the "life permitting values" would have to be narrow?
Why MUST they be narrow in a design model? Why can't they be wide a design model? Why can't they be narrow in a non-design model?

Your so-called prediction doesn't seem to follow logically from your supposed "model" at all.
Also, quotes around "model", because as a model, that is laughably vague and abstract.

This is a mistake because predictions do not have to follow *logically* from the model……… predictions are just possible (or physically necessary) outcomes…………. But not logically necessary.

I know that this mistake is trivial, I know it is not relevant, I know it was probably just a typo…………but I decided to make this observation to see if Tag is willing to admit mistakes…………

 

[leroy]

I disagree. I think it's extremely honest.



You most definitely didn't. You just piled on claims and misrepresented science.



I didn't handwave anything. I pointed out a problem. A problem you will clearly not address. Instead, you just double down and pretend there is no problem.

That's where the conversation ends.
That's what is actually "dishonest and dishonorable"

And now I predict that you will once again pretend none of this happened and will demand links, which in turn will also be ignored and misrepresented when given.
So I will refrain from that exercise in futility. Instead, I will just invite readers to click the arrows in the quotes of the posts to scroll back the conversation so they can read the trail of posts for themselves.



Off course you don't.

Again, you made me elaborate an argument with my own words…………and you just hadwaved..this is the last time I try to have an honest dialog with you

 

[F1fan]

This is a mistake because predictions do not have to follow *logically* from the model……… predictions are just possible (or physically necessary) outcomes…………. But not logically necessary.

Cite the experts or valid source that agrees.

 

[Pogo]

So...“four-legged” birds, reptiles, mammals and amphibians are said to have repeatedly transitioned from the land to the sea, adapting their legs into fins." Take a Deep Dive Into The Reasons Land Animals Moved to the Seas

Yup, the tetrapod (four limbed) body plan is common to terrestrial vertebrates including those who have returned to the seas for their livelihood.
This site uses the term anthropocene for the current age due to the effect of humans on the earth, this term is still contentious in some circles if you are looking for a controversy.

 

[Pogo]

@Subduction Zone @Pogo @McBell @F1fan etc.

Once again you have the opportunity to learn a lesson……………

1 I am claiming that user Tag is wrong

2 I will quote his exact words

3 I will explain why is he wrong

The same courtesy is expected every time you claim that I am wrong.


This is a mistake because predictions do not have to follow *logically* from the model……… predictions are just possible (or physically necessary) outcomes…………. But not logically necessary.

I know that this mistake is trivial, I know it is not relevant, I know it was probably just a typo…………but I decided to make this observation to see if Tag is willing to admit mistakes…………

@leroy If your predictions do not follow logically from your model you have missed the entire point of creating a model and in fact you really need to leave this arena and get a basic education in logic and argument.

 

[leroy]

@leroy If your predictions do not follow logically from your model you have missed the entire point of creating a model and in fact you really need to leave this arena and get a basic education in logic and argument.

I guess I am going to trust @Subduction Zone on this one.

Can you please explain to him that the predictions don´t have to follow logically from the model?

 

[Charles Philips]

First you should learn what a transitional actually is.

With that false idea in your head of what it is, you will not be able to properly recognize it.

Doubling down on these strawmen isn't going to help you or your case.

You're obviously clueless about what you believe in. You have blindly placed your faith in a theory you know nothing about. I shouldn't have to teach you about your false religion, if you don't know what a transitional fossil is then I give up. You're beyond reason, and that proves how powerful deception is

 

[Charles Philips]

There is no "crockoduck stage" in actual evolution.
There only is such a stage in your strawman version. And yes, we all agree that your version of evolution is false.



Nope.

In fact, and quite hilariously, if crockoducks were found, evolution (actual evolution as understood in the science of biology), would be disproven.

This is the extent of your failure. The evidence you demand to see "for" evolution, would actually disprove it.

You can't keep ducking and weaving and sidestepping my charges. Your strawman theory hinges on the pathetic crocoduck and you don't like it because the great man Ray Comfort put you to shame

 

[gnostic]

Yes but the point that I made is that we don’t need to know HOW something was made in order to conclude design…… so ether agree or refute this point……………………….. ohhh let me guess you already refuted that , but you won’t quote the supposed refutation.

No. You actually need to support your claims with evidence…which you have.

Claiming something that haven’t been demonstrated, don’t make your claims automatically true.

if you cannot support the claims with evidence, experiments or data, then you are merely making unsubstantiated assertions, and that’s nothing more than expressing personal opinion.

So you do need to demonstrate the HOW with your claims of “design”. You have don’t that, and neither have anyone else whoever advocated for Intelligent Design.

And underpinning the Intelligent Design concept, especially by the members of the Discovery Institute, the so-called “design” required a “Designer“, because they frequently claimed that life are not only too complex without it being “designed“, the “designs” required a designer.

But once again, Intelligent Design needs to demonstrate that the Designer exists in the first place…in which NO ID FOLLOWERS HAVE MANAGED TO DO!

This is why the Discovery Institute isn’t a scientific organisation. It is organisation that only published their creationism propaganda, just as you are doing, Leroy.

Your so-called “design“ is nothing more than pseudoscience, propaganda and useless creationist gimmick. There are no scientific values in Intelligent Design because it is ultimately unfalsifiable, because the designs and Designer are untestable & ultimately untested.

 

[Charles Philips]

Your posts demonstrate otherwise.
Expecting to see crockoducks "if evolution is correct" not only suggests you don't know what you are talking about, it actually PROVES that you don't know what you are talking about.


It's like trying to argue against gravity because "hammers float in the space station".

How pathetic to see you scrambling around trying to find a defense for the indefensible. Just admit it, evolution is the biggest scam of the millennium, don't be ashamed millions have fallen for the scam

 

[Charles Philips]

Who do you believe has set themselves up as the highest and final authority and the only "abettor?" of truth here? Clearly you don't believe it is anyone you respond to.

Did you mean "arbiter"? Probably so, since "abettor" is a person that encourages others to do wrong. SMH!

Are you their final authority, arbiter or abettor? So many hats.

Oh, the irony!

You don't like being exposed, do you?. A wise man embraces correction but a fool abhors it

 

[leroy]

No. You actually need to support your claims with evidence…which you have.

Claiming something that haven’t been demonstrated, don’t make your claims automatically true.

if you cannot support the claims with evidence, experiments or data, then you are merely making unsubstantiated assertions, and that’s nothing more than expressing personal opinion.

So you do need to demonstrate the HOW with your claims of “design”. You have don’t that, and neither have anyone else whoever advocated for Intelligent Design.

Again, the HOW is not essential to determine design, an observation (direct or indirect) of a Dyson sphere would be evidence for design, even if we don’t know how the object was made.

But once again, Intelligent Design needs to demonstrate that the Designer exists in the first place…in which NO ID FOLLOWERS HAVE MANAGED TO DO!

That is circular reasoning…………….you are basically saying that you won’t accept any argument in favor of the existence of a designer…………if I don’t first show that the designer exists.

This is obviously fallacious

 

[Charles Philips]

It takes a special sort of pride (or hubris) to dismiss the work of millions of scientists over generations in virtually every university in the world, except in those countries run by Abrahamic religions, because you suppose you know better -- based on, well, what, actually? I do not accept that it is based on your superior education, or astonishing genius.

Are you serious, you don't really expect me to fall for that old junk wisdom that teaches "follow the crowd, as they know the truth". I'm not sure who persuaded you to believe that trash, but I can tell you that following the crowd only shows you're not using your own brain. Quite sad really

 

[McBell]

A wise man embraces correction but a fool abhors it

*bites tongue*
**really really hard**

 

[Charles Philips]

LOL No. I'm pointing out that the guy you keep quoting (Ray Comfort) does not understand evolution, which he demonstrates when he claims we should be seeing crocoducks.

Much like yourself.

Bravo, Bravo, great defense of a ridiculous theory. When someone exposes it, just claim they don't know enough about it, whilst refusing to defend the charges. I can't think of anything more pathetic, congrats

 

[YoursTrue]

Another amazing proposition -- "a new study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B has found that once mammals turn to a fully aquatic life, there's no going back, evolutionarily speaking." See? It has been decided by scientists that once mammals turn to a fully aquatic life, it's goodbye Charlie to land life any more. See? Dolphins are fully satisfied in the water, they are not going to live on land any more! No Going Back: Why Dolphins and Whales Will Never Return to Land » Explorersweb.

 

[YoursTrue]

You still don’t seem to understand that the word “ape” isn’t a name for any species. It is a name of branch within taxon order Primate, but itself is the name of the taxon (super-) family Hominoidea, which means “Apes”. What it means is that the families, genera and species - that are extinct or extant - shared some common traits.

The modern humans - or the Homo sapiens is the species, and it is the only one that are extant in the genus Homo.

Homo means “human”, but the Homo sapiens weren’t the only species of human or Homo. The Neanderthal, Denisovans, the Homo erectus, and so on, are all humans too, as well as being the “Greater Apes” or Hominidae (family), Hominoidea, and so on. So not only modern humans are both humans and apes, we are also all mammals.

Just as Mammalia are not referred to as species, it is shared trait that all mammals have mammary glands. We are mammals, just as the dogs, horses, lions, seals, brown bears, whales, and so on, are mammals too.

Understanding the terms in their proper biological contexts are required to avoid making wrong assumptions, and avoiding being ignorant..

Uh huh. Apelike - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

1. adjective
   resembling apes
   synonyms:anthropoid, anthropoidalnonhuman
   not human; not belonging to or produced by or appropriate to human beings
2. adjective
   being or given to servile imitation
   synonyms:apishimitative
   marked by or given to imitation

 

[YoursTrue]

substantially no, it is an old website from fairly early in the internet age of creationism as can be seen by the links (with instructions even). the text may be dated, but evolution hasn't stopped happening and the theory is in no danger.

There must have been something that caught your eye but I'm not going to look for it.

Yeah, I love this one: No Going Back: Why Dolphins and Whales Will Never Return to Land » Explorersweb.
(Maybe it changed since it was written.)