Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Dan From Smithville]

I suppose the big question is whether they are going off to lick their wounds, or are they flying home to claim victory?

It has been my experience in many similar encounters that the latter is a mechanism for the former.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Seriously though, I will miss the free entertainment

I don't think the forum will be lacking in that, but I do know what you mean.

 

[John53]

I suppose the big question is whether they are going off to lick their wounds, or are they flying home to claim victory?

You know it's option 2

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You know it's option 2

I think I figured out what the reference to chimeras means.

@Eli G is saying that science claims crocoducks.

I kid you not.

Good grief!

At least Rumpelstiltskin spun his straw into gold and not fallacious arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's talk "web": Did you know that the official JWs website is the most translated in the whole net?

... more than any scientific institution website, more than NASA's website, more than the Vatican's website, a lot more than any other website, simply THE MOST TRANSLATED, without adds, with security, totally free for all public ...

So what? That is only because the JW's heavily proselytize. It has nothing to do with requests for information.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think I figured out what the reference to chimeras means.

@Eli G is saying that science claims crocoducks.

I kid you not.

Good grief!

At least Rumpelstiltskin spun his straw into gold and not fallacious arguments.

He cannot be serious. But maybe he is. He may be on a Ray Comfort level. One thing that would actually refute the theory of evolution would be chimeras like that. Trust a creationist to get things as wrong as one could possibly be.

Chimeras are not impossible with creationism. God could have mixed traits in any manner that he saw fit. In evolution traits that appear in another line cannot be swapped out to others. For example we have a modern crocodilian head attached to a duck body with feathers. Those traits arose long after the split between those different organisms. It makes such a chimera impossible according to the theory of evolution. An all powerful deity could do it very easily.

 

[John53]

I think I figured out what the reference to chimeras means.

@Eli G is saying that science claims crocoducks.

I kid you not.

Good grief!

At least Rumpelstiltskin spun his straw into gold and not fallacious arguments.

That's scarier than a sharknado.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's scarier than a sharknado.

When I was a kid, I made a crack to my folks about how little of an opinion I had of communism. Suddenly, I found myself being grilled about my knowledge of communism, which turned out to be very limited. I was told that if I was going to come to an opinion on something, that I should know what it is I'm talking about. I did do some reading on the subject, and came to my own conclusions that apparently, my folks actually agreed with. But rejection of communism wasn't really the message they intended and I think they were happy that I seemed to get their point.

So, why is it that so many science deniers decide to make threads about subjects they are obviously so unfamiliar with that they cannot even come up with a valid reason for rejecting it? They rely on the most ridiculous nonsense that isn't something claimed by science or even something one could come to from a review of the theory?

I suppose the real answer probably is that they don't care whether their rejection is based on sound reasoning or actual evidence.

But sharknado. That's a real thing isn't it? Scary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I was a kid, I made a crack to my folks about how little of an opinion I had of communism. Suddenly, I found myself being grilled about my knowledge of communism, which turned out to be very limited. I was told that if I was going to come to an opinion on something, that I should know what it is I'm talking about. I did do some reading on the subject, and came to my own conclusions that apparently, my folks actually agreed with. But rejection of communism wasn't really the message they intended and I think they were happy that I seemed to get their point.

So, why is it that so many science deniers decide to make threads about subjects they are obviously so unfamiliar with that they cannot even come up with a valid reason for rejecting it? They rely on the most ridiculous nonsense that isn't something claimed by science or even something one could come to from a review of the theory?

I suppose the real answer probably is that they don't care whether their rejection is based on sound reasoning or actual evidence.

But sharknado. That's a real thing isn't it? Scary.

Very scary near the ocean By the time they got to Minnesota they were either dehydrated or frozen stiff. They did make good snowboards and you can see that influence still today:

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Very scary near the ocean By the time they got to Minnesota they were either dehydrated or frozen stiff. They did make good snowboards and you can see that influence still today:

View attachment 84888

I imagine it is the microstructure on their skin. It inhibits bacteria from sticking and apparently snow as well. A good thing Clark Griswold didn't get ahold of one of those sharkboards. He would never have stopped.

 

[John53]

When I was a kid, I made a crack to my folks about how little of an opinion I had of communism. Suddenly, I found myself being grilled about my knowledge of communism, which turned out to be very limited. I was told that if I was going to come to an opinion on something, that I should know what it is I'm talking about. I did do some reading on the subject, and came to my own conclusions that apparently, my folks actually agreed with. But rejection of communism wasn't really the message they intended and I think they were happy that I seemed to get their point.

So, why is it that so many science deniers decide to make threads about subjects they are obviously so unfamiliar with that they cannot even come up with a valid reason for rejecting it? They rely on the most ridiculous nonsense that isn't something claimed by science or even something one could come to from a review of the theory?

I suppose the real answer probably is that they don't care whether their rejection is based on sound reasoning or actual evidence.

But sharknado. That's a real thing isn't it? Scary.

My parents were the you will believe what I tell you type. I was the kid who asked questions. It wasn't a good mix then and still isn't now. I really don't understand why people feel everyone should accept their beliefs without question. If you don't agree they take it as an insult.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My parents were the you will believe what I tell you type. I was the kid who asked questions. It wasn't a good mix then and still isn't now. I really don't understand why people feel everyone should accept their beliefs without question. If you don't agree they take it as an insult.

I suspect it is due in part to the idea that they have "the truth" and no other knowledge is necessary or can be contrary to their "truth". But when the reality is that there is something else out there, you would think it would dawn on them to learn what that is. Perhaps the idea of that instills fear of learning what may open them to doubt or they are told not to learn by others that have that fear.

It just seems such a strange concept to me to argue against something that is clearly not understood. It is like arguing against firefighting by a pacifist. Fighting is just wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is dogma. It is only dogma that people want to believe. They want to believe that man is the Crown of Creation. Sure they say man is only a twig on the tree of life but in the very next breath they say we are at the top of the food chain and we are all geniuses who know everything even how we became a twig.

Huh?
Where on earth did you get that nonsense?
If anything, it's creationists who have such a superiority complex.

Did I ever mention that no experiment shows Evolution and all observation shows species change suddenly at bottlenecks?

Yes, you mention that ad nauseum and every time this error of yours is corrected, but alas..............

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course Darwin made everything up. Do you believe God handed down scripture from above and he just published it?

Right, right.... because the only alternative to making sh!t up is gods handing down scripture from "above".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But you still can't produce any experiment that shows gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest.

You've been given a multitude of links to exactly such experiments and every single one of them received the handwaving treatment.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution is a myth.

Everytime when somebody claims this and is being asked to motivate the statement, it turns out they are just arguing a strawman version of the theory.

Adaptability and variations in animal species is the most normal thing that everyone can see

Then why do you call it a "myth"?

They do not make a new species of an old one, but a new family inside the species

Your wording is a bit off, but essentially, that is correct. Species remain on the same branch as their ancestors. Species never outgrow their ancestry, that is correct.
Eukaryotes will produce more eukaryotes and subspecies thereof
Tetrapods will produce more tetrapods and subspecies thereof
Mammals will produce more mammals and subspecies thereof
Primates will produce more primates and subspecies thereof
humans will produce more humans and subspecies thereof

Humans are still humans, primates, mammals, tetrapods, eukaryotes.

In evolution, cats don't produce dogs. Species don't jump branches. They only split in sub-branches (= sub-species).

How else did you think it works?
Were you expecting crockoducks?

... as happens with human beings and our ability to adapt and changes in our bodies; We will never stop being human because of that... just as we were never apes, nor did apes ever stop being apes, despite the variety of the apes that exist and may have existed before.

You make no sense.
Humans are apes just like humans are mammals.
Do you deny humans are mammals?

Your personal emotional issues with being an ape doesn't change the fact that humans are apes.
Here's a list of features that defines a creature as an ape:

• a brain that is larger and more complex than other primates
• distinctive molar teeth in the lower jaw which have a ‘Y5’ pattern (five cusps or raised bumps arranged in a Y-shape)
• a shoulder and arm structure that enables the arms to freely rotate around the shoulder
• a ribcage that forms a wide but shallow chest
• an appendix
• no external tail

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution is a myth.

You may consider yourself an ape, like some men consider themselves women, and women men... cool ... cool yourselves.

I challenge you to come up with a definition of "ape" which includes all apes yet excludes humans without explicitely and arbitrarily adding something akin to "...but not humans".

List biological features that are supposedly shared by all apes, yet excluding humans.

I bet you a bazillion dollars that you will fail.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution has never been observed. The term implies "slow changes", very slow, and which according to the defenders of the myth, took millions of years to take place. Evidently, no human has ever observed, or will ever observe, something like "evolution of one species into another."

Speciation in real time

evolution.berkeley.edu

Be real.

Be intellectually honest.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hehehe, afraid of science?

I'm impresed that some people who consider themselves "apes" called themselves "scientists" ...

I used to work in a psychiatric hospital, and a patient jumped off the roof because he said he was going to fly.

You can call yourself what you want ... leave me, and true science, out of your imagination.

Are humans mammals?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If it existed there would be lots of evidence but there is none. there would be many instances of slight changes in species over long periods but this is not seen. It's not that there are a lot of missing links so much as the entire "fossil record" is a missing link.