Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You sure are stubborn. I won't reply to any alleged scientific arguments, if they are shrouded with snarky, demeaning, personal attacks. You can keep them up, (and your devotion is awesome!), but i won't engage you in rational debate. I'll dismiss you as a heckler, since it is what you want..
And you do what, now?
I did that here:
No one will take you seriously when you make false clams about others. And once again, no one has used ad hom against you. You really should learn what an ad hominem fallacy is. It goes much deeper than an extremely shallow look at the etymology of the phrase.
It is dishonest when you do not understand the concept.
..yes, asking for evidence for a scientific theory is soooo.. dishonest..
You think false accusations provide evidence for common descent?
99% of your posts are littered with insults and accusations and condescension.
I used scadding's ARGUMENTS.. not his authority. Unlike the irrational progressive indoctrinees here..
F*** scadding. I don't care what he believes. But his arguments on vestigiality are sound. Address them, if you want to refute the argument, instead of trying to discredit the source..
Bluff. You poo flinging hecklers won't touch scientific evidence with a 10 foot pole... oh, you may hide some vague innundo or allusion of something that 'sounds sciency!', in your floods of heckling and hateful personal attacks, but your evidence is pretty pathetic.. non existent, really
Hardly. I fling a little poo back at you every so often, but mostly just i expose you as unscientific propagandists and religious fanatics, defending your beliefs with jihadist zeal..
Well, golly gee. That's what I've been saying. They only vary, within the limits of their dna. Macro evolution is an unevidenced belief, and has NEVER been observed.
Projection. Just because you impotent 'debaters' don't know the facts, have no reasoning ability, and run on emotion and hysteria, does not indicate I'm lying. That is a false accusation and is exactly ad hominem.
Who cares?
Right. Project distort, and falsely accuse all you want. I have no illusions about the intellectual depth of the True Believers, here..
That's your schtick. I look at the evidence, and let people decide for themselves. You and your fanatical cronies are obsessed with 'winning!' or some other groupthink loyalty game. I deal in the facts of science and reason.. not something progressive indoctrinees are good with. You've got your memorized dogma, and facts, reason, and reality will not affect them.
/Yawn/..
Let me know if you get tired of flinging poo with your heckling, shrieking troup.. did you bring peanuts?
Your obsession with credentials is pathetic. I make arguments and deal in facts. You have ridicule, mocking, and fallacies. So how does that evidence your beliefs? Deflect with arguments of authority all you want.. you merely out yourself as a propagandist.
The irrational, unevidenced, unscientific hysteria from these pseudo science religious fanatics always amazes me..
So you are not a serious discussant.
I'm shocked that you got no response...
I find it very curious, that the indignant debaters and True Believers for common descent don't even seem to know the main arguments for their own theory..
How about this one?
Vestigiality
Vestigial organs: These are organs or conditions that do not seem to have a current function, and are explained as a 'leftover' from a previous incarnation.
There are a lot of assumptions, calling something 'vestigial!' It is based mostly on a 'looks like!' fallacy of plausibility, not anything evidentiary or experimental.
It was a popular 'proof!' in the 19th century, when they didn't know what some organs were for...
"The 'vestigial organ' argument uses as a premise the assertion that the organ in question has no function. There is no way however, in which this negative assertion can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one can not prove that something does not exist (in this case a certain function), since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically. The best we can do is to state that despite diligent effort, no function was discovered for a given organ. However it may be that some future investigator will the discover the function. Consequently, the vestigial organ argument has as a premise, either a statement of ignorance (I couldn't identify the function), or a scientifically invalid claim (it does not have a function). Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational or experimental science.
"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution." ~zoologist S. R. Scadding (University of Guelph, 175f.)
Apparently so. Apparently @usfan does really believe that despite his self-admitted lack of expertise in evolutionary biology, he is fully capable of reviewing, critiquing, and passing wholesale judgement on the work of evolutionary biologists. Oh, and he apparently also believes that everyone else should not only listen to him on the subject, but go along with everything he says about it.
It is implied in the questions. The Pew survey gave scientists the following choices to pick from...
You were given THIS LINK to a special issue of the journal Science, wherein human/common ancestry is a primary topic.
You are incorrect.
It's called statistical sampling.
Because it is a non-issue in other countries.
Earlier in this post you were talking about surveys, now you're talking about official statements. As noted earlier, not only did the AAAS issue a statement, they published a special issue of the journal Science in which common ancestry (humans/primates) was a specific topic.
Here, educate yourself....
Um.....theories explain the evidence.
You have been given so much scientific evidence which you then either ignore or discredit with your opinion (not evidence). You deny any evidence that contributes to the whole argument that there is common descent which is the way science builds the supportive evidence. So why not just try once to give an actual scientific study which shows evidence against common descent. I cant wait to read it.
Even as he dismisses actual scientific research because of all the "technobabble"....
It is.
I do often wonder why it is that people with no understanding of the subject whatsoever nevertheless will feel compelled to pontificate on the matters at hand.
