Irony of the evolutionary belief

[YoursTrue]

Did you read the rest of the website or just search it for some codewords that you think mean something?

It is a little surprising these days to see a website that still looks a lot like it's 1998 inception, though it looks like it hasn't had any attention since 2013.

why? It's not true, or have assertions changed since then?

 

[McBell]

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.)

“We found that it’s possible to go from fully terrestrial to semiaquatic in [small steps], but there’s an irreversible threshold for some aquatic adaptations,” lead study author Bruno Farina told Live Science in an interview. Farina is a doctoral student at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland.​

​

No Going Back: Why Dolphins and Whales Will Never Return to Land » Explorersweb

If you're a mammal, the commitment to a fully aquatic life is a one way street, a new study found. Sebastian would be pleased.

explorersweb.com

Seems you missed the word "some"...​

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

Not "follow the crowd," not at all. But give credit where it is due to those who have done the hard work -- and more to the point, held it up for public review. And then, just so you know, and to the point of "using (my) own brain," I have looked at the work and at the evidence and the reviews, through the lens of some small knowledge of science of my own.

As you have never cited a single thing from the whole body of work on the subject (and it runs to hundreds of thousands of papers and volumes and fills museums around the world open to anyone to come in and see) -- I make the assumption, and I know I am correct, that you have really looked at none of it. And on the basis of that ignorance, you make pronouncements that tell us all we need to know about your use of your own brain.

 

[YoursTrue]

“We found that it’s possible to go from fully terrestrial to semiaquatic in [small steps], but there’s an irreversible threshold for some aquatic adaptations,” lead study author Bruno Farina told Live Science in an interview. Farina is a doctoral student at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland.​

​

No Going Back: Why Dolphins and Whales Will Never Return to Land » Explorersweb

If you're a mammal, the commitment to a fully aquatic life is a one way street, a new study found. Sebastian would be pleased.

explorersweb.com

​

Seems you missed the word "some"...​

I did? Did you mean here? "But who’s to say humans (or some version of us) won’t be swimming around down there with them as the millennia roll on?" (I was thinking that maybe scientists and 'some' others here believe some version of humans will go back to being fish of some sort that evolve back to water dwellers...) And there's another use of the word 'some' in the article: "About 150 million years later, some tetrapods ventured back to the briny blue and became the fully aquatic mammals we know and love today." Do they know which tetrapods or only that SOME of them "ventured back to the briny blue..."

No Going Back: Why Dolphins and Whales Will Never Return to Land » Explorersweb

If you're a mammal, the commitment to a fully aquatic life is a one way street, a new study found. Sebastian would be pleased.

explorersweb.com

I'm glad you read the article offering information (?) by -- some scientists...

 

[YoursTrue]

Not "follow the crowd," not at all. But give credit where it is due to those who have done the hard work -- and more to the point, held it up for public review. And then, just so you know, and to the point of "using (my) own brain," I have looked at the work and at the evidence and the reviews, through the lens of some small knowledge of science of my own.

As you have never cited a single thing from the whole body of work on the subject (and it runs to hundreds of thousands of papers and volumes and fills museums around the world open to anyone to come in and see) -- I make the assumption, and I know I am correct, that you have really looked at none of it. And on the basis of that ignorance, you make pronouncements that tell us all we need to know about your use of your own brain.

Yes -- in relation to the Bible, which has not been added to for thousands of years -- yes, there's a difference.

 

[Pogo]

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?

No, because you are wrong and I can't tell you why because your grasp of the word logic is not sufficient for your understanding to be logically possible.

 

[Charles Philips]

Not "follow the crowd," not at all. But give credit where it is due to those who have done the hard work -- and more to the point, held it up for public review. And then, just so you know, and to the point of "using (my) own brain," I have looked at the work and at the evidence and the reviews, through the lens of some small knowledge of science of my own.

As you have never cited a single thing from the whole body of work on the subject (and it runs to hundreds of thousands of papers and volumes and fills museums around the world open to anyone to come in and see) -- I make the assumption, and I know I am correct, that you have really looked at none of it. And on the basis of that ignorance, you make pronouncements that tell us all we need to know about your use of your own brain.

You're right I haven't wasted my time going over all the fake theories, that the crowd follows as they are lost and we know lost people follow anything the crowd does. When you don't know the truth, you will fall for any fake theory to give you a sense of security and belonging.

I have thousands of experts on my side, who have thoroughly refuted and exposed the TOE and many other pseudo science theories.

I studied this topic, but the professor couldn't get past first base with me, I simply asked him if he expected me o accept that "everything came from nothing". He couldn't give me a straight answer, but he scrambled to try and explain that some unknown force caused the big bang and evolution to occur. I told him my intelligence was insulted and I left the class.

The problem with pseudo science is, it doesn't allow critical thinking. It simply relies on everyone taking the kool aid and not disrupting the class with difficult questions. You know, it's the old "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story".

 

[Pogo]

Yes -- in relation to the Bible, which has not been added to for thousands of years -- yes, there's a difference.

Which is why the Bible is the wrong place to look for understanding as it only presents the limited knowledge of those who wrote it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes -- in relation to the Bible, which has not been added to for thousands of years -- yes, there's a difference.

And why hasn't it been added to? Because religion pretends it already knows the "Truth" from the beginning, and is therefore closed to learning anything at all new. Not one of man's best efforts in his search for knowledge, actually.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You don't like being exposed, do you?.

I haven't been exposed as anything. Nothing to like or dislike.

A wise man embraces correction but a fool abhors it

I haven't seen you embrace correction. Hmmm.

It is interesting how you get defensive and attack other people when you can't address what they post.

Between that and the vast rain of empty assertions, that seems to be all that your position amounts to. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

But do go on.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You're right I haven't wasted my time going over all the fake theories, that the crowd follows as they are lost and we know lost people follow anything the crowd does. When you don't know the truth, you will fall for any fake theory to give you a sense of security and belonging.

I have thousands of experts on my side, who have thoroughly refuted and exposed the TOE and many other pseudo science theories.

I studied this topic, but the professor couldn't get past first base with me, I simply asked him if he expected me o accept that "everything came from nothing". He couldn't give me a straight answer, but he scrambled to try and explain that some unknown force caused the big bang and evolution to occur. I told him my intelligence was insulted and I left the class.

The problem with pseudo science is, it doesn't allow critical thinking. It simply relies on everyone taking the kool aid and not disrupting the class with difficult questions. You know, it's the old "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story".

It's interesting that you keep referring to "kool aid," (the provenance of which, of course, I know).

But what you fail to understand is that the most likely reason your professor "couldn't get past first base with" you, is because you wouldn't listen to him. If you don't speak Swahili, the most beautiful poetry in that language will remain completely out of your grasp. If you don't speak reason, you'll never understand anything said using that idiom, either.

 

[Pogo]

You're right I haven't wasted my time going over all the fake theories, that the crowd follows as they are lost and we know lost people follow anything the crowd does. When you don't know the truth, you will fall for any fake theory to give you a sense of security and belonging.

I have thousands of experts on my side, who have thoroughly refuted and exposed the TOE and many other pseudo science theories.

I studied this topic, but the professor couldn't get past first base with me, I simply asked him if he expected me o accept that "everything came from nothing". He couldn't give me a straight answer, but he scrambled to try and explain that some unknown force caused the big bang and evolution to occur. I told him my intelligence was insulted and I left the class.

The problem with pseudo science is, it doesn't allow critical thinking. It simply relies on everyone taking the kool aid and not disrupting the class with difficult questions. You know, it's the old "don't let the truth get in the way of a good story".

And so you found your place in the world acting out Chick Tracts. LOL go Big Daddy

 

[YoursTrue]

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

It is? (Have a good one...)
"However, if we are to be honest, we do not know what gravity "is" in any fundamental way - we only know how it behaves. Gravity is a force of attraction that exists between any two masses, any two bodies, any two particles. Gravity is not just the attraction between objects and the Earth." So according to this, it's a force of attraction that exists between any two masses, etc. What is gravity?.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, because you are wrong and I can't tell you why because your grasp of the word logic is not sufficient for your understanding to be logically possible.

logically then, the universe could not have come about because of gravity, the real meaning of which is not known anyway.

 

[McBell]

I did? Did you mean here? "But who’s to say humans (or some version of us) won’t be swimming around down there with them as the millennia roll on?" (I was thinking that maybe scientists and 'some' others here believe some version of humans will go back to being fish of some sort that evolve back to water dwellers...) And there's another use of the word 'some' in the article: "About 150 million years later, some tetrapods ventured back to the briny blue and became the fully aquatic mammals we know and love today." Do they know which tetrapods or only that SOME of them "ventured back to the briny blue..."

No Going Back: Why Dolphins and Whales Will Never Return to Land » Explorersweb

If you're a mammal, the commitment to a fully aquatic life is a one way street, a new study found. Sebastian would be pleased.

explorersweb.com

I'm glad you read the article offering information (?) by -- some scientists...

I presented the problematic "some" in the post you replied to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is? (Have a good one...)
"However, if we are to be honest, we do not know what gravity "is" in any fundamental way - we only know how it behaves. Gravity is a force of attraction that exists between any two masses, any two bodies, any two particles. Gravity is not just the attraction between objects and the Earth." So according to this, it's a force of attraction that exists between any two masses, etc. What is gravity?.

That is true. But that does not mean that we cannot understand its role in starting the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

logically then, the universe could not have come about because of gravity, the real meaning of which is not known anyway.

Sorry, but that does not logically follow.

 

[Pogo]

logically then, the universe could not have come about because of gravity, the real meaning of which is not known anyway.

Enough of the pigeon chess.

 

[Charles Philips]

It's interesting that you keep referring to "kool aid," (the provenance of which, of course, I know).

But what you fail to understand is that the most likely reason your professor "couldn't get past first base with" you, is because you wouldn't listen to him. If you don't speak Swahili, the most beautiful poetry in that language will remain completely out of your grasp. If you don't speak reason, you'll never understand anything said using that idiom, either.

It wasn't a case of me refusing to listen to the professor. It was rather a case of not subjecting myself to have my intelligence raped. I do listen if someone has something sensible to share with me, but I refuse to subject myself to mental abuse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

You need to reread his post.