Irony of the evolutionary belief

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I've explained multiple times what a transitional is.
It's not my fault that you are to obtuse to correct your own mistakes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can't keep ducking and weaving and sidestepping my charges.

There is nothing there to "duck and weave and sidestep".
Strawmen don't require refuting. They only require being pointed out.

I can only repeat myself: there are no crockoducks in evolution. If a crockoduck were found, evolution would in fact be disproven.

Your strawman theory hinges on the pathetic crocoduck

No. Only your strawmen does.

and you don't like it because the great man Ray Comfort put you to shame

Lines like this just make me more and more convinced that you are in fact a Poe.

 

[Pogo]

The following is your thread presence - nothing but insult, bravado, bluster, and bullying. There is zero substance or argument:

I suspect he grew up on a diet of these;

Chick.com: Big Daddy?

A student proves evolution is full of holes.

www.chick.com

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Nobody has "exposed" anything here. Ray Comfort was laughed off the stage many years ago. He and Kirk Cameron and their ridiculous crocoduck picture that betrays their monumental misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works. I guess that's why Kirk Cameron is always talking about how they have to "circumnavigate and go around the person's intellect" when making their nonsensical arguments.

And honestly, the fact that you keep bringing him up, continues to confirm my initial feelings about you being a POE, because nobody who understands evolution would ever cite Ray Comfort on the subject.

Matt Dillahunty and Russell Glasser had Ray Comfort on their show many years ago, where they interviewed and debated with him about his misconceptions and false assertions about evolution. You should really give it a listen. It's pretty embarrassing for Ray Comfort, but well worth the listen.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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".

The Professor was probably baffled as to why you were taking a class on biological evolution but you were expecting to get answers about cosmogony and abiogenesis. You took the wrong class, guy.

What are you going to tell us next, that you took a class on electrical engineering and were baffled as to why the Professor couldn't answer your questions about medicine?

 

[Pogo]

Dear lord.................................................

Yes leroy, predictions have to follow logically from the model. That's in fact what makes them predictions from the model.

Ramen.

Some here are just JW trolls, some are just ignorant trolls, some were raised on jack chick booklets and then we have @leroy whose language and sources I have tried to understand, but the disconnect between his language and understood meaning has exceeded Woo and even opposite land. I guess he wins?

 

[Pogo]

Nobody has "exposed" anything here. Ray Comfort was laughed off the stage many years ago. He and Kirk Cameron and their ridiculous crocoduck picture that betrays their monumental misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works. I guess that's why Kirk Cameron is always talking about how they have to "circumnavigate and go around the person's intellect" when making their nonsensical arguments.

And honestly, the fact that you keep bringing him up, continues to confirm my initial feelings about you being a POE, because nobody who understands evolution would ever cite Ray Comfort on the subject.

Matt Dillahunty and Russell Glasser had Ray Comfort on their show many years ago, where they interviewed and debated with him about his misconceptions and false assertions about evolution. You should really give it a listen. It's pretty embarrassing for Ray Comfort, but well worth the listen.

2011 and the argument was old then, it took a while to recognize Comfort's joke, but I think it goes back to Jack Chick and Big Daddy, anyhow, a blast from the past.

 

[leroy]

You need to reread his post.

why dont you answer directly?

do predictions have to follow LOGICALLY from the model/hypothesis?

yes or no?

Obviosly the answer is NO, but you dont whant to correct your ally because you dont want to expose him in a public fórum……….correct?

 

[leroy]

Ramen.

Some here are just JW trolls, some are just ignorant trolls, some were raised on jack chick booklets and then we have @leroy whose language and sources I have tried to understand, but the disconnect between his language and understood meaning has exceeded Woo and even opposite land. I guess he wins?

@TagliatelliMonster

This will be fun………………can you please give me an example of a prediction that follows logically from the theory of evolution?


My suggestion, please learn what “follow logically” means before answering

 

[SkepticThinker]

why dont you answer directly?

do predictions have to follow LOGICALLY from the model/hypothesis?

yes or no?

Obviosly the answer is NO, but you dont whant to correct your ally because you dont want to expose him in a public fórum……….correct?

Of course. Why even make a model in the first place then?

 

[SkepticThinker]

@TagliatelliMonster

This will be fun………………can you please give me an example of a prediction that follows logically from the theory of evolution?


My suggestion, please learn what “follow logically” means before answering

Predicting Fossil Finds | KQED

Scientists used evolutionary theory to figure out where to find the bones of this fishibian. Lately I have been reading Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. And so far it is a fascinating read. What is so great about this book for a scientist is that it gives the big picture on evolution. This sort

www.kqed.org

 

[leroy]

Dear lord.................................................

Yes leroy, predictions have to follow logically from the model. That's in fact what makes them predictions from the model.

Ok thanks for clarifying everything to me…………… if you are not willing (or are to mentally capable of) accepting trivial and obvious mistakes……… you are obviously not in a position to have a dialog with me.

A brief summary of absurdities that you have said in this thread:

1 your claim that you are a father, is not evidence that you really are a father

2 words and sentences written in the sky would not be evidnece for design

3 predictions have to follow logically form the model/hypothesis/theory etc.


see @McBell Unlike @F1fan the fanatic atheist I can provide a list………….

 

[leroy]

Predicting Fossil Finds | KQED

Scientists used evolutionary theory to figure out where to find the bones of this fishibian. Lately I have been reading Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. And so far it is a fascinating read. What is so great about this book for a scientist is that it gives the big picture on evolution. This sort

www.kqed.org

The discovery of “fishbians” doesn’t follow logically from the theory of evolution……….do you know what “follow logically means”?


An example of follow logically would be “I am married………...therefore(prediction) I am not a bachelor”……. This means that there is no possible way and no possible world where I could be married and be a bachelor………. This is what follow logically means”

Who a I kidding………..obviously you will not grasp this

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

do predictions have to follow LOGICALLY from the model/hypothesis?

Yes, if they are to be accurate predictions. How else can one make an accurate prediction except by deduction? Consider the recent solar eclipse. The laws of planetary motion have been elucidated by induction - generalization based in unifying a series of prior observations. Once one has those rules, he can make specific predictions (deductions) by plugging in values for the parameters in the equations and noting which of them correspond to casting a shadow on the earth with specific predictions of when and where.

can you please give me an example of a prediction that follows logically from the theory of evolution?

The theory predicted that a mechanism for inheritance exists and would be found. Darwin predicted the existence of certain long-billed pollinators to account for pollination of trumpet shaped flowers. We predict that the Covid virus will mutate and newer vaccines will be needed. Tiktaalik was anticipated before it was discovered. Because we have common ancestors, it's predictable that some medications that work on other animals will likely work on human beings as well, and so animal testing is done.

Logic (deduction) dictated that all of these should be the case if the theory were correct before they were confirmed empirically.

 

[leroy]

Yes, if they are to be accurate predictions. How else can one make an accurate prediction except by deduction? Consider the recent solar eclipse. The laws of planetary motion have been elucidated by induction - generalization based in unifying a series of prior observations. Once one has those rules, he can make specific predictions (deductions) by plugging in values for the parameters in the equations and noting which of them correspond to casting a shadow on the earth with specific predictions of when and where.

The theory predicted that a mechanism for inheritance exists and would be found. Darwin predicted the existence of certain long-billed pollinators to account for pollination of trumpet shaped flowers. We predict that the Covid virus will mutate and newer vaccines will be needed. Tiktaalik was anticipated before it was discovered. Because we have common ancestors, it's predictable that some medications that work on other animals will likely work on human beings as well, and so animal testing is done.

Logic (deduction) dictated that all of these should be the case if the theory were correct before they were confirmed empirically.

The mistake is that “logically follows” is a very strong word ……………. This means that there is no logical way in which the prediction doesn’t follow from the model/theory/hypothesis etc.

For example it is logically possible that the pollination of trumpet shaped flowers where just hallucinations created by the Matrix , in which case the long-billed pollinators wounpt excist.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are not an idiot, but you are wrong far too often because you refuse to learn from your errors. You will not even acknowledge them.

lol, I love that. I'm wrong because the scientists haven't quite figured it all out. Anyway, here's another tidbit for your perusal: "Speaking during a TV talk show "Star Talk", aired on Sunday on National Geographic Channel, Hawking propounded his theory on what happened before the universe came into existence." I notice his theory was broadcast on the National Geographic Channel. my, oh my! Nothing was around before origin of universe: Stephen Hawking Imagine that. Nothing was around before the origin of the universe. Isn't that quaint?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, if they are to be accurate predictions. How else can one make an accurate prediction except by deduction? Consider the recent solar eclipse. The laws of planetary motion have been elucidated by induction - generalization based in unifying a series of prior observations. Once one has those rules, he can make specific predictions (deductions) by plugging in values for the parameters in the equations and noting which of them correspond to casting a shadow on the earth with specific predictions of when and where.

The theory predicted that a mechanism for inheritance exists and would be found. Darwin predicted the existence of certain long-billed pollinators to account for pollination of trumpet shaped flowers. We predict that the Covid virus will mutate and newer vaccines will be needed. Tiktaalik was anticipated before it was discovered. Because we have common ancestors, it's predictable that some medications that work on other animals will likely work on human beings as well, and so animal testing is done.

Logic (deduction) dictated that all of these should be the case if the theory were correct before they were confirmed empirically.Pl

Please answer me this--would you say a lot of information is packed into a zygote?

 

[Pogo]

why dont you answer directly?

do predictions have to follow LOGICALLY from the model/hypothesis?

yes or no?

Obviosly the answer is NO, but you dont whant to correct your ally because you dont want to expose him in a public fórum……….correct?

In your case apparently not. In the real world yes.
logical possibility is the set of all things that could happen.
logical inference or prediction is the subset that are limited by things that can happen if the model is true.
other logically possible outcomes are possible but they are evidence that the model is not true and predictions from it may well be false.

This is basic logic that you are apparently unfamiliar with.
Your unfamiliarity with logic is why you keep making statements that we dismiss without further evidence as they fail to even be worth evaluation.

 

[Pogo]

@TagliatelliMonster

This will be fun………………can you please give me an example of a prediction that follows logically from the theory of evolution?


My suggestion, please learn what “follow logically” means before answering

Our suggestion is you go back to grade school and learn the basics of logic.
That said, evolution predicted that Tiktaalik should exist and even where it would be found.

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Back to you, why is this not a logical prediction.
Got a new supply of popcorn yesterday so I am ready.

 

[Pogo]

Ok thanks for clarifying everything to me…………… if you are not willing (or are to mentally capable of) accepting trivial and obvious mistakes……… you are obviously not in a position to have a dialog with me.

A brief summary of absurdities that you have said in this thread:

1 your claim that you are a father, is not evidence that you really are a father

2 words and sentences written in the sky would not be evidnece for design

3 predictions have to follow logically form the model/hypothesis/theory etc.


see @McBell Unlike @F1fan the fanatic atheist I can provide a list………….

@leroy, go back to grade school and learn why all your claimed absurdities are not. We obviously can't explain it to you. I'm not sure anyone can, but knowledge level needed is 6-7th grade.