On Evolution & Creation

[TagliatelliMonster]

She keeps claiming to understand evolution and then asks questions like that one which proves that she doesn't. Or that she could be lying. I do not think that she is a liar. She appears to be a terrible victim of cognitive dissonance when it comes to evolution or other sciences that refute her religious beliefs.

I used to think so to.

I'm no longer convinced of this. She has been explained her strawman a bazillion times for 3 years. These past few pages, I've done nothing but press on it and even literally wrote at some point that my hypothesis of her being deliberately dishonest predicts that it wouldn't take more then a few pages before she'ld repeat the same mistake.

It took only 23 posts for confirmation. And several times more after that. Even though I kept pressing still.
She replies to the posts where I press it and she replies about irrelevant off-topic things concerning tiktaalik and transitionals without addressing the strawman or answer the questions about it.

It's done.

She is not sincere. She is not honest. She is of bad faith. She is lying.
I can no longer convince myself that it's just mere cognitive dissonance or honest misunderstanding.
This is deliberate.

@YoursTrue : prove me wrong. Answer the questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I used to think so to.

I'm no longer convinced of this. She has been explained her strawman a bazillion times for 3 years. These past few pages, I've done nothing but press on it and even literally wrote at some point that my hypothesis of her being deliberately dishonest predicts that it wouldn't take more then a few pages before she'ld repeat the same mistake.

It took only 23 posts for confirmation. And several times more after that. Even though I kept pressing still.
She replies to the posts where I press it and she replies about irrelevant off-topic things concerning tiktaalik and transitionals.

It's done.

She is not sincere. She is not honest. She is of bad faith. She is lying.
I can no longer convince myself that it's just mere cognitive dissonance or honest misunderstanding.
This is deliberate.

Well I have to be careful with the word lying. For some reason that can bring the ban hammer down on me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well I have to be careful with the word lying. For some reason that can bring the ban hammer down on me.

Yeah, me too. I don't particularly care. There comes a point where obvious dishonesty only deserves exposure, no matter the unfair consequences.

 

[Audie]

My questions aren't about believing / accepting the theory.
My questions are about a misrepresentation of it which has been pointed out on a near weekly basis for the past 3 years.

It's one thing to not believe it, it's quite another thing to actively insist on misrepresenting it.
If ones disbelieve of the theory is solid and justified, then why insist on lying about it?



Except scientists can't do that.


The only reason you know about frauds, is because science is peer reviewed. Meaning the frauds of one "scientist" sooner or later will be exposed by others.
A handful of (again: exposed) frauds doesn't invalidate the millions and millions of legit pieces of evidence.

The peccary ( not pig ) tooth misidentification was an error, not a fraud.

The fraud is entirely in the behaviour of our creationists
who pretend something different from the simple facts.

Religious frauds are perpetrated all over the world, every day,

 

[Audie]

Yeah, me too. I don't particularly care. There comes a point where obvious dishonesty only deserves exposure, no matter the unfair consequences.

Deserves to be ignored

 

[Subduction Zone]

The peccary ( not pig ) tooth misidentification was an error, not a fraud.

The fraud is entirely in the behaviour of our creationists
who pretend something different from the simple facts.

Religious frauds are perpetrated all over the world, every day,

I think that error comes from a classic Chick Tract. A comic book written by an extremely foolish and rather evil creationist. Jack Chick was an extreme science denier and was just about every sort of "ist" that ever existed. He also included valid fossils in his list such as Lucy, Peking Man, and Java Man. He still did not have enough so he invented one more of his own. "New Guinea Man". The only place that example is found is in his list or by people quoting it.

 

[metis]

So the Virgin Mary idea clashes with the idea of evolution. I know the Pope says evolution is ok. What about Mary conceiving? Does he believe that she did without sexual intercourse? I think he probably does, and as a scientist, what would you say, did it happen or did it not happen.

AGAIN, that is a theological concept, NOT a scientific one!

Now as you know I don't believe in the theory of evolution as it stands, although I do believe that species can intermingle until they can't intermingle, thus are stalemated according to the species no longer having ability to interbreed.

That's because you likely were brainwashed by clergy to not accept the logical and scientific reality of evolution, such as what I also was taught by clergy when a teenager. I left that church, never to return as "lying in the name of God" is a real LOW.

Well, that's interesting. Because here's where the theory doesn't make sense (to me). Inanimate matter is said to have come alive -- ok -- wait a minute, sir -- how do scientists say inanimate matter became alive?

How many times do you have to be told that this is a "hypothesis", thus not assumed by us to be true??? Why do you keep repeating this falsehood even after it has been repeatedly explained.

 

[metis]

I think that error comes from a classic Chick Tract.

My anthro students used to bring these in for me, so I would explain...

BTW, the authors of those tracts had to know what they were doing was dishonest, so their "lying in the name of God" was quite telling.

 

[Valjean]

I don't know what you mean by magic. That I recognize there are mechanics that put objects like DNA in place. I am not convinced by evidence that there is no superior intelligent unseen power. Just the opposite.

But what facts or reasoning convinces you?
There is no need for conscious design. Ordinary, everyday chemistry or physics can account for everything we see in the world, so why invent an invisible, unevidenced god manipulating things by magic?
By magic, by the way, I mean effect without mechanism.

 

[Valjean]

Say we add migration to this scenario. The mom and all her pups move south for the winter, and come back north in the summer. The following year, some after migrate south and other stay north. Both decide to stay where the weather better suits their clothes. Now all stay one step ahead of natural selection; brain. Assessing one own survivability, can cause one to make selective changes.

Exactly! Features that are selective in one environment are detrimental in another. Environmental change drives evolution.
Yes, species migrate, and some always inhabit the marginal areas of their habitat. As long as there is reproductive variation, nature will favor (select) whatever variants are best adapted to whatever environment they find themselves in or move to.

Humans migrated since they first appeared on the scene, with some stopping in many different places all over the world. They learned to alter the environment so they can have more control over natural selection.

Yes, that's a human thing. Other species adapt themselves to fit whatever environment they're trying to inhabit. Those born with favorable features thrive and outbreed toose born poorly adapted. The percentage of favorable (fit) features increases in the population over the generations.

Today, human selection has replaced natural selection for many things like animal and plant breeding. Weeds are a product of natural selection yet we pull them out so the weaker, but prettier flowers and veggies can do better.

Yes, humans, as a part of the environment, are also a selective force.

When Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands what he saw was a place that had stopped in time. What was there, was like a final selection without much in the way of competition or change. It was like steady state was reached. This gave Darwin the sense of evolution being a long slow process and not an immediate change like in the Bible.

Exactly! The islands had not stopped in time. Darwin saw evidence of natural selection of adaptive features over many generations. It was not a steady state. It was a long, slow process.

 

[YoursTrue]

But what facts or reasoning convinces you?
There is no need for conscious design. Ordinary, everyday chemistry or physics can account for everything we see in the world, so why invent an invisible, unevidenced god manipulating things by magic?
By magic, by the way, I mean effect without mechanism.

I am not sure, but I don't think you know when or how gravity was formed. I'll wait for your answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

But what facts or reasoning convinces you?
There is no need for conscious design. Ordinary, everyday chemistry or physics can account for everything we see in the world, so why invent an invisible, unevidenced god manipulating things by magic?
By magic, by the way, I mean effect without mechanism.

Well then -- thinking about Christmas and how many people celebrate it, and of course many do not believe that Jesus was born to a virgin -- but would you say that those who really DO believe Jesus existed as written also believe in magic?

 

[YoursTrue]

Translation: I ignore what I don't like and I am lazy.

Evolution is a big field. Explanations of many things will tend to be quite long as it consists of quite some information.

If you can't bare to read more then just a couple sentences, then sorry to say - then you are not honest in your supposed quest for knowledge.

But let's not pretend as if you even take into account short posts... Whenever information is presented to you that is inconvenient for your anti-science sentiments, you tend to ignore them.

This is why you still repeat the "x remains x" strawman even though it's been corrected every time you said it for the past 3 years.

You and others want to misinterpret what I said. But thank you, and I understand that also. MEANTIME, what information do you have that shows you know for certain that fish became, evolved to, human beings? And from what other fish they evolved from? While you're at it, the only explanation I can think of that scientists might use to explain why nothing has been observed to demonstrate that finches evolve to anything other than finches, or viruses evolve to something other than viruses is that there's not enough time to observe if they do, according to the theory. Carry on...Now please do explain if you do or don't believe that Mary got pregnant by magic. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

Show me a process explicable by known chemistry or physics; otherwise the effect you claim must be assumed to be magic.

So you must also believe then that it is assumed to be magic when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.

 

[YoursTrue]

I will ignore every post you address to me from now on, unless it is to actually answer the questions I've asked +10 times now.

I'll just continue to copy-paste them until you find the courage to answer them and expose to us all that you either have learned exactly nothing these past 3 years, OR you are being deliberately dishonest. I'm guessing that's why you won't answer... because you KNOW it will expose one of both options, and neither is going to make you look good.

@YoursTrue Friendly reminder to answer these 2 simple questions about the statement "finches remain finches"

1. does the statement support or contradict evolution theory?
2a. if it supports the theory, why does it support it?
2b. if it contradicts the theory, why does it contradict it?

Answer to #1 - if you believe it supports or contradicts the theory of evolution, that depends on you. It doesn't matter what you BELIEVE -- because -- finches remain finches thus far as I know. Maybe you KNOW more than that. If you can discern the answer to your question, so be it. If not, also so be it. #2a&b are up to you -- to decide. If you cannot discern what I think based on the evidence we can see now that finches remain finches, so be it. Oh, and viruses remain viruses. Thus far. So I understand. Maybe you know more.

 

[Argentbear]

I am not sure, but I don't think you know when or how gravity was formed. I'll wait for your answer.

Gravity is a property of mass so gravity "formed" when matter formed

 

[YoursTrue]

Gravity is a property of mass so gravity "formed" when matter formed

You're sure of this, are you? Some masses have less gravity than others. Anyway.

 

[Argentbear]

So you must also believe then that it is assumed to be magic when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.

I can beleive that the story of Lazarus is a myth.

 

[Argentbear]

You're sure of this, are you? Some masses have less gravity than others. Anyway.

yeah and maybe you noticed that objects have different masses. Do you suppose there is a some sort of connection or relationship between the amount of mass and the strength of gravity?

 

[icant]

Except scientists can't do that.

They did.

The only reason you know about frauds, is because science is peer reviewed. Meaning the frauds of one "scientist" sooner or later will be exposed by others.

There have been many. Even Einstein's fudge factor.

A handful of (again: exposed) frauds doesn't invalidate the millions and millions of legit pieces of evidence.

I haven't seen that many pieces of evidence though they exist, If you can ever find out how life began to exist from non-life.

Enjoy,