I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[1robin]

Tsk tsk. You will never learn with such an attitude.

This a perfect example of your posting nothing that anyone anywhere could hope to learn anything from. You are making me regret my decision to reopen our discussion. Please pick up your game or I will have to cull my nuts again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This a perfect example of your posting nothing that anyone anywhere could hope to learn anything from. You are making me regret my decision to reopen our discussion. Please pick up your game or I will have to cull my nuts again.

You are pretending your post where you earned that comment did not exist. You gave a rude response to a well thought out post. Complaining when you are scolded for your bad behavior is simply wrong.

 

[Darkstorn]

This a perfect example of your posting nothing that anyone anywhere could hope to learn anything from.

Uh, i think the fact that he barely bothers to take you seriously(i don't blame him) should provide a few lessons.

Why is he not taking you seriously? Ask yourself that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@1robin when people offer you evidence you either ignore it or try to claim it is not "proof". That only tells us that you are either not willing to debate honestly or do not have a basic understanding of how science is done. Rather than assume that you are dishonest I assume that you merely need to learn the basics.

So let's go over the basics first. It will save you from making the same errors in post after post.

 

[1robin]

So... If a link contains said "proof" it doesn't actually exist provisionally until you actually go in and physically read it, and since you didn't bother to, such proof doesn't exist to you?

It would take you less time to do what I requested than your investing in making excuses as to why you can't. This is very very simple. Since you are not getting it I will give you an analogy. If someone tells a person that a specific movie is really good. That person will probably not invest 2 hours to watch it unless the person recommending it does not give you a specific example of what makes it so good.

This just makes you look both disingenuous and lazy. But it is your choice on how you wish to present yourself in the internet.

Excuse number 20 so far.

It's a debate. Not bothering to read the content of the posts of your opponents shows to others the shakiness of your position. Is that good enough?

Yes, I have over 13,000 debates, I know what they are. I do not care about your color commentary. I only care whether you provide what is necessary or not. So far, no good.

As a non-party to this argument, i say not reading those links is intellectual laziness. And physical laziness.

I don't care. Provide what I requested or keep your complaints to your self.

 

[Darkstorn]

It would take you less time to do what I requested than your investing in making excuses as to why you can't.

I didn't post any links. Are you actually trying to imply that it's a random guy's job to do your work for you?!

This is very very simple. Since you are not getting it I will give you an analogy. If someone tells a person that a specific movie is really good. That person will probably not invest 2 hours to watch it unless the person recommending it does not give you a specific example of what makes it so good.

It's not THIS simple. We're not talking about subjective opinions here. Or movies.

Excuse number 20 so far.

That is my first post in this thread. Or are you talking about yourself?

Yes, I have over 13,000 debates, I know what they are. I do not care about your color commentary. I only care whether you provide what is necessary or not. So far, no good.

Yes, but you don't really bother to read. As evidenced by this post. And which is my original claim: You don't bother to read. You only wish to speak.

I don't care. Provide what I requested or keep your complaints to your self.

No, and no?

/E: I assume you didn't bother to actually read my username. Don't you think that kind of proves my point here?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would take you less time to do what I requested than your investing in making excuses as to why you can't. This is very very simple. Since you are not getting it I will give you an analogy. If someone tells a person that a specific movie is really good. That person will probably not invest 2 hours to watch it unless the person recommending it does not give you a specific example of what makes it so good.

Excuse number 20 so far.



Yes, I have over 13,000 debates, I know what they are. I do not care about your color commentary. I only care whether you provide what is necessary or not. So far, no good.



I don't care. Provide what I requested or keep your complaints to your self.

Observations are not excuses. People are willing to help you to learn, but when you simply reject that which you do not understand you make it hard for people to respect your demands.

 

[1robin]

I read the entire thread. This sounds like a HUGE deflection.

What does your available time to invest in a debate have to do with my own?

You literally had the time to keep posting, just not reading. For OVER A MONTH.

You have no idea what time I have available for anything. I broke my femur a few months ago. I had a UTI and have been experiencing a form of PTSD recently. I did not have a month to invest in anything but surviving however I do not owe you any explanation.

Let's put this into perspective: You are making lots of excuses for not having the time to bother to read links. You've been posting for over a month in this thread, wasting a HUGE amount of time.

That is a statement of fact and I am the only one who has access to my available time. Stop this absurd color commentary, provide what I requested, or do not continue to waste what little time I have at the moment.

But no, you cannot read a page with _one A4 page worth of text_. No, your time is too precious.

I don't understand what you mean by an A4 time frame and I doubt that you did either. .

I am not surprised.

Not one single thing you posted has had anything what so ever to demonstrate that one breeding population evolving into another. So far are you have done is post a avalanche of excuses as to why you can't or won't.

 

[Jose Fly]

That is the one thing you did not show.

Yes I did. That you are too lazy to look does not mean the data doesn't exist.

Now you did post a link, but I can't fully investigate every link I am given

I didn't ask you to "fully investigate every link you were given". I provided you with a link to one single paper in the PNAS. You don't even appear to be curious about its contents, which doesn't speak well of you or your position.

I mean, here you are going on and on about your belief in the Bible and how you're here to defend it, yet when someone responds to your argument and gives you a link to a paper published in a very prestigious journal, you can't even be bothered to click it? You're not even a little curious? Not curious enough to just read the abstract?

Wow.

so I asked you to just copy and paste from the link the proof that anything I said was wrong. I am still waiting on you to do so.

As has been noted by management here, doing that is against forum rules. But rather than curse your deliberate ignorance, I'll explain the point.

The paper cites multiple examples where existing species of plants have been observed giving rise to new species that, due to differences in numbers of chromosomes, are physically incapable of breeding with the original parental species. And in those cases, the newly evolved species persists on its own just fine, even though it is completely reproductively isolated from the original species.

IOW, it's exactly what you earlier claimed has never been observed and runs counter to what the Bible states.

 

[Darkstorn]

What does your available time to invest in a debate have to do with my own?

Uh, what?

You have no idea what time I have available for anything. I broke my femur a few months ago. I had a UTI and have been experiencing a form of PTSD recently. I did not have a month to invest in anything but surviving however I do not owe you any explanation.

... And posting in this thread. For over a month. LONG posts too occasionally.

That is a statement of fact and I am the only one who has access to my available time. Stop this absurd color commentary, provide what I requested, or do not continue to waste what little time I have at the moment.

I'm just saying your excuse for not reading a link is very weak. And it's becoming ever more elaborate, and diluted. Thus even weaker.

You've wasted enough of your "little time" in this thread for it to look like anything more than deflection.

I don't understand what you mean by an A4 time frame and I doubt that you did either. .

A4 is a "standard" printer paper. A3 is larger, A5 smaller. The article has lots of large pictures. It's pretty short.

Not one single thing you posted has had anything what so ever to demonstrate that one breeding population evolving into another. So far are you have done is post a avalanche of excuses as to why you can't or won't.

What? I haven't posted a single excuse. The previous post you quoted is literally the first post i made in this thread. My argument was mostly this: You're too lazy to read your opponents' posts.

You are proving that to be true.

 

[Jose Fly]

@1robin ,

As I noted earlier, I'm more used to dealing with folks who are actually curious about things like the evolution of new species and as such, when they read the PNAS paper I linked to earlier, would also read some of the supporting papers. For example.....

Recent and recurrent polyploidy in Tragopogon (Asteraceae): cytogenetic, genomic and genetic comparisons

Tragopogon mirus Ownbey and T. miscellus Ownbey are allopolyploids that formed repeatedly during the past 80 years following the introduction of three diploids (T. dubius Scop., T. pratensis L. and T. porrifolius L.) from Europe to western North America. These polyploid species of known parentage are useful for studying the consequences of recent and recurrent polyploidization. We summarize recent analyses of the cytogenetic, genomic and genetic consequences of polyploidy in Tragopogon. Analyses of rDNA ITS (internal transcribed spacer) + ETS (external transcribed spacer) sequence data indicate that the parental diploids are phylogenetically well separated within Tragopogon (a genus of perhaps 150 species), in agreement with isozymic and cpDNA data.​

I believe we're done here. Your claim is simply wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

What are you referring to? I plagiarized nothing, and I specifically requested a paragraph at most be copied and pasted from a provided link. I am not sure what your post means.

The requested copy and paste would likely be far more than a paragraph. It is better to go to a link than to request an article be posted here.

 

[1robin]

Sorry to hear that.{/quote] I appreciate the sentiments.

When we deal with the evolution of life forms, that's science, not religion. Much like we don't use science to dictate what your religion may teach, it really doesn't make much sense to use a specific interpretation of the Bible to judge biology by.

Well technically it can be both but I agree with what your trying to say. Keep in mind that the bible is very concerned with the supernatural which by definition can't be evaluated by natural law. However in this case that doesn't matter. The bible claims that evolution does occur but is limited, so if you can show that common descent is a fact then the bible's claims can't be true.

"Speciation" says otherwise: Speciation - Wikipedia Also, there are links to studies that you can click on.
I posted a scientific source before plus where you can find others that confirm that "macro-evolution" can and has taken place. So, here from a non-scientific source:
Within the modern synthesis of the early 20th century, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[8] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution".[8] However, time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation – this is especially common in plants.[9]

Changes in the genes regulating development have also been proposed as being important in producing speciation through large and relatively sudden changes in animals' morphology.[10][11] -- Macroevolution - Wikipedia



Other such sources: :Examples of Macroevolution

From science sources: Natural Selection and Macroevolution in your lifetime – Starts With A Bang

Macroevolution: Examples from the Primate World | Learn Science at Scitable

Exploring macroevolution using modern and fossil data


There's lots more where these came from if you google "macroevolution examples".

This is kind of irrational. I said that I do not have time to invest in following a specific link unless someone can show that that investment is justifiable and you responded by posting 6 additional links. I do acknowledge that you attempted to provide what I requested but after reading it, it does not appear to provide any evidence for it's conclusion. It could basically be summed up as the opinion of someone that macroevolution has occurred but I do not see any evidence that his conclusion is true. I am not saying that I disagree with the evidence, I am saying there is no evidence at all. However again, I acknowledge your attempt at copying and pasting what I requested. I would like you to try it again. I will be more specific concerning my request.

Please evaluate each of your links. Pick out the best claim or two contained in your links. Copy it or them and if I feel it justified I will investigate your links sufficiently. Keep in mind that I am looking for scientific evidence not just someone's opinion. Do you understand what I am driving at?

 

[1robin]

Actually you do that quite often. I even tried to explain to you how one scientifically investigates an idea and you ignored that.

Then you should have provided an example but you didn't.

You keep making the claim that evolution has not been observed and then ignore the corrections of that claim of yours.

Exactly how many times do I have to emphatically claim that the bible affirms evolution, it just limits it and you either won't or can't show that one breeding population evolved into another. I spend all my time with you pointing out that you constantly misstate my own claims.

Perhaps we should go over some basic concepts in science, such as what is and what is not evidence, how on observes events, how one tests one's ideas. All you have so far is denial and a demand for "proof" which only shows a lack of understanding of how one works in the sciences. We can supply endless evidence for evolution. There is no scientific evidence that goes against evolution. In the sciences nothing is ever proven. But if you accept gravity as real then you should accept evolution. Both concepts are observable and testable. There are no scientific ideas that exist that are in competition with those two ideas.

It is very easy for you to show that what I have claimed is not true. I will clarify this yet again.

1. The bible claims that evolution does occur but is limited.
2. That limit is hard to define but evidence that proves common descent would mean the bible was incorrect.
3. Provide that evidence, if it has occurred there should be millions of examples of one breeding population has evolved into another.

It is very simple, provide actual evidence that common descent is true.

 

[Darkstorn]

This is kind of irrational. I said that I do not have time to invest in following a specific link unless someone can show that that investment is justifiable and you responded by posting 6 additional links

It is very simple, provide actual evidence that common descent is true.

Why? You just said you're never going to bother reading any of it.

This IS a debate. You are showing the minimum possible effort. Yet you are using a LOT of time. What does the Bible say about idleness?

Please evaluate each of your links. Pick out the best claim or two contained in your links. Copy it or them and if I feel it justified I will investigate your links sufficiently. Keep in mind that I am looking for scientific evidence not just someone's opinion. Do you understand what I am driving at?

I understand that you demand a lot of things from others yet are unwilling to give anything yourself. You aren't even bothering to use any effort in this debate. But you did bother to post in it for over a month.

If you ask me, the "investment is justifiable" in that you're on a debate forum making claims, and you could make it look like something else than you not bothering to read links by your own admission.

That is your argument: "Oh, are you guys really expecting me to click on a link and to.... *gasp* READ IT?!"

And you call others irrational.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you should have provided an example but you didn't.

No example was needed. We are talking about the basics of science that you do not understand.

Exactly how many times do I have to emphatically claim that the bible affirms evolution, it just limits it and you either won't or can't show that one breeding population evolved into another. I spend all my time with you pointing out that you constantly misstate my own claims.

Sorry, you can't redefine evolution And if you want to claim that there is a limit to how far life can evolve the burden of proof is upon you. Specific examples have been given to you. Jose Fly just gave you one

It is very easy for you to show that what I have claimed is not true. I will clarify this yet again.

1. The bible claims that evolution does occur but is limited.
2. That limit is hard to define but evidence that proves common descent would mean the bible was incorrect.
3. Provide that evidence, if it has occurred there should be millions of examples of one breeding population has evolved into another.

It is very simple, provide actual evidence that common descent is true.

Been there done that, bought the tee shirt. Now it is time for you to either learn the basics of science and evidence. Until you do there is no point in trying to help you.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I've recently committed to rejoining my family's religion (the Jehovah's Witnesses). In doing so I'm obligated to give up my belief in evolution. This is hard for me because I find evolution so logical.

To combat my resistance to rejecting evolution, I've been researching all the objections to evolution and studying all the arguments for creation. It's not working. I can't seem to give up my belief in evolution, despite the fact that it goes against Jehovah's Witness theology.

What should i do?

How do I manipulate my logical facilities so that I can genuinely reject evolution and genuinely accept creation?

Read George Orwell's 1984 with particular attention to "doublethink".

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Sorry, my health is not what wish at the moment. I have been away for a week or two. I no longer can see alerts to your posts from over 3 days ago. So I have decided to pick up our discussion at this point but if you want me to respond to older posts of yours I need you to give me those specific post numbers. I appreciate your being patient with me.

I am glad to hear from you again, and I hope your health improves.

If you have any questions, please ask and I will do my best to clarify any of the concepts we have discussed.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I do not care what specific taxonomy term you wish to slap on any biological event you choose. I am defending what the bible states. You are right that evolution from one breeding population into another takes a long time if it even a occurs. That is exactly why I stated that it has never been observed. So we are in exactly the same position at this point as where I started. No one has ever observed anything that violates what the bible claimed 3000 years ago concerning biology.

Since you have already stated that you are defending the Bible, I doubt that any observation would change your mind. I could show you multiple observations of fossils that have a mixture of human and ape features, but would these observations change your mind? I'm guessing not.

I did not suggest anything that contradicts the evolution of life. I specifically said the bible affirms the existence of evolution, microevolution, but not macroevolution.

What's the difference between microevolution and macroevolution in your estimation?

 

[Earthling]

I've recently committed to rejoining my family's religion (the Jehovah's Witnesses). In doing so I'm obligated to give up my belief in evolution. This is hard for me because I find evolution so logical.

To combat my resistance to rejecting evolution, I've been researching all the objections to evolution and studying all the arguments for creation. It's not working. I can't seem to give up my belief in evolution, despite the fact that it goes against Jehovah's Witness theology.

What should i do?

How do I manipulate my logical facilities so that I can genuinely reject evolution and genuinely accept creation?

You've read the Watchtower publications, the Creation books? There's actually two of them, though they are pretty old they makes sense to me. You've seen the videos by David Berlinski and even 100 reasons why evolution is stupid?