The Big Bang and Evolution

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Have a nice day. You get to angry to discuss anything intelligently.

My, but you're a delicate little flower.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

I have challenged all you evos to cut and past the evidence from any link you choose. To date NONE have done so. What does that tell you.

Instead of whinning about what I do, be the hero and show them I am wrong. Cut and paste some evidence and we can discuss it. IMO, some have gone back and when they looked for the evidence all they found was opinions.

Someone here has this quote below their avatar "Reasoning with one who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to a dead man." (Thomas Paine).
It looks good on you.

 

[omega2xx]

Oh, do stop wittering about proof. Theories don't get proved - that isn't how science works.

That may be most ignorant, obviously wrong statement anyone can make about science. The main purpose of science is to prove/disprove theories. You dislike the workd "proof" becaue you don't have any.




Evolution is an observed fact and the ToE explains it.



Ring species are a demonstration of how one species changes into another. You've said that is impossible and you've also said that you'd accept the usual definition of species.

Hence, something you've said is wrong.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but you need to meet me half-way here.

Sorry but I don't have to. I have told why I quit reading links and I am not going to start again. My request is very simple.

The link is about three minutes of reading, and comprises the brief story of a young earth creationist's recognition of a cognitive bias that he unwittingly wore for years, and how it affected his ability to process information.

To cut and past would have taken less time that it did fcor you to type that sentence. Someone else's inability to process information has nothing to do with my ability and I am just a qualified as you are to read and understand or I would not have graduated from college. IMO, my ability is better. You have a problem processing infommatiion as to if it is evidence of opinion.

It's OK if you choose to not look at that, but your reason seems strange: Because I didn't copy-and-paste it all for you to read in a post rather than ask you to click on a link instead.

As I noted to you earlier, it is impossible to teach anything to a person without their cooperation, especially that which he or she has a vested interest in not learning. That's fine, but I can't get through such a barrier.

If you ever develop an interest in learning about evolution, the evidence will be your personal pursuit of information rather than asking others to go get it for you. You will come here with questions about your reading if you have any. At that time, we can have a give-and-take on evolution. Now, you're just asking people to bring you evidence and telling them that you don't see evidence there. That's Morton's demon at work. It's kind of pointless trying to get anything past it.

Consider how you approach something that you actually do want to learn - perhaps something about the Bible. What is your demeanor then? Probably not the same as it is here. It's probably cooperative and inquisitive. It probably involves you taking initiative. You might have a workbook, and it sends you too your Bible with its equivalent of a link - a chapter and verse. You hungrily look it up and pore over it as if it has value to you. You want to know it. And then you want to know it better.

That's what's missing here. If you brought that attitude to this endeavor, you could be taught. We can't do it without your help.

Sorry, but you need to meet me half-way here. The link is about three minutes of reading, and comprises the brief story of a young earth creationist's recognition of a cognitive bias that he unwittingly wore for years, and how it affected his ability to process information.

It's OK if you choose to not look at that, but your reason seems strange: Because I didn't copy-and-paste it all for you to read in a post rather than ask you to click on a link instead.

As I noted to you earlier, it is impossible to teach anything to a person without their cooperation, especially that which he or she has a vested interest in not learning. That's fine, but I can't get through such a barrier.

If you ever develop an interest in learning about evolution, the evidence will be your personal pursuit of information rather than asking others to go get it for you. You will come here with questions about your reading if you have any. At that time, we can have a give-and-take on evolution. Now, you're just asking people to bring you evidence and telling them that you don't see evidence there. That's Morton's demon at work. It's kind of pointless trying to get anything past it.

Consider how you approach something that you actually do want to learn - perhaps something about the Bible. What is your demeanor then? Probably not the same as it is here. It's probably cooperative and inquisitive. It probably involves you taking initiative. You might have a workbook, and it sends you too your Bible with its equivalent of a link - a chapter and verse. You hungrily look it up and pore over it as if it has value to you. You want to know it. And then you want to know it better.

That's what's missing here. If you brought that attitude to this endeavor, you could be taught. We can't do it without your help.

If you want to discuss the subject then stick to the subject. If you want to pontificate, I am not intrested in your OPINIONS

 

[omega2xx]

Yes, only one side is presented, but it's the nature of the presentation that distinguishes proper teaching from indoctrination.

Not true. If there is more than one side and only one is presented, the student is not properly educated. Indoctrination i snot education.

What goes on in secular schools is not the same thing as what happens in Sunday School. Indoctrination doesn't present evidence and argument, let the individual evaluate it and make a decision for himself like my school teachers did.

You are right, indoctrination does not present evidence and argument. That is why is is indoctrination. That is not educting.

Nobody ever told me what I must believe, or scolded me for not accepting any dogma. I could have passed with flying colors just as long as I learned what was being presented and could demonstrate that I had done so whether I believed it or not.

Actually they did. If you didn't parrot what the teacher taught, you failed their tests.

Nor did anybody ask me if I believed it.

Indoctrination is not about what you believe, it is about what you are told to believe.

Indoctrination is telling somebody what to believe. He is to accept it uncritically. That is what creationism is and what creationists do, for example. They are simply told that God created the kinds, no evidence or argument is presented, and they are chastised for not believing it or asking too many questions. That's a completely unrelated method of instruction.

Were you ever taught in a religious school? If not you have no idea what they do.

Religious education is the classic example of indoctrination.

Christian schools present both sides. However, they are not mandatory to get a HS diploma.

 

[omega2xx]

Viruses are not generally considered living things. They're genetic material packaged in protein coats that infect cells, co-opt its metabolic capability, and cause the infected cells to reproduce more viruses. Their genetic material can mutate, which is why a new influenza virus is required every flu season.

A mutation does not change the species. They only alter a characteristic the life form would have gotten without the mutation. The albino was going to get eyes. The mutation only changed the color of its eyes.

 

[omega2xx]

Thanks for offering that I take my own advice!
What you're referring to is a form of Allopatric speciation. It ends up with the development and emergence of a new population based on geographic isolation from the parent group.
Allopatric speciation - Wikipedia

You're referring to a well-known ring species. That's good! I'm glad you know about them (Though you're about to run into the same roadblock that most creationists do in being unable to answer the next question...)

Ring species - Wikipedia
Discovering a ring species

Since you recognize the existence of the new population of salamanders, and admit that they diverged from their parent population via natural means, I'd like you explain to me what natural genetic barrier exists which would stop them from developing further, becoming even more distinct and separated from their parent population as time goes on... Imagine that instead of a mountain range and a few lakes that they had been isolated by continents and drastic weather differences. What might we expect from those two populations after further isolation? What biological mechanism exists to keep this completely new species of salamander from diverging further from their original genetic pool? Are there any?

A subspecies is not a new species any more than the offspring of a poodle and a bull dog is a new species.

You're agreeing that physical environments and factors have the ability to "create" entirely new species, even if you prefer to call them subspecies.

I did not call them a subspecies. l That ws the classification of those who did the study. The enviroment cannot change a species. It might make the species infertile or cause it to become extinct, but it is not a mechanism that will change the species.

A population of creatures now exists that did not previously exist. They came into existence via wholly natural means, adapting to their ever-changing environments as they traveled further and further away from their original population and locale. They now exist as a physiologically distinct group that does not (or cannot) interbreed with their original group. If that's not evolution, I'd like you to tell me what it is.

Not true. That were born salamanders and at the end of the end of the study they were still salmanders.

 

[omega2xx]

Ha, ha, ha, wonderful how godbots consider facts that refute bronze age mumbo jumbo to be anger

What you are saying is you cannot defend your position with words to you opt for ad hominem, you must be a Christian.

I can defend what I say. You can't. You must be an evolutionists.

 

[ratiocinator]

Oh, do stop wittering about proof. Theories don't get proved - that isn't how science works.

That may be most ignorant, obviously wrong statement anyone can make about science. The main purpose of science is to prove/disprove theories. You dislike the workd "proof" becaue you don't have any.

A Gentle Reminder that a Hypothesis is Never Proven Correct, nor is a Theory Ever Proven to Be True

For really rather obvious reasons, a theory can only be falsified, not proved.

 

[omega2xx]

All I have to do, to prove you wrong? Is to post the links. It is not UP to me to SCHOOL you in Science. Furthermore? I don't give a rat's exhaust what you do from now on, as I'll be blocking your comments after this post is viewed, or in a day or so.

I haven't figured out how to do that in this venue, yet, but I'm sure there are ways. Congratulations! You will be my first Ignore in this page.

Life is too short to argue with people who refuse to learn.

How sad. I give all you evos a simple way to prove I am wrong and you ALL avoid it. Makes me wonder why.

Don't forget to cover your ears and yell as loud as you can, "it ain't true."

 

[omega2xx]

My, but you're a delicate little flower.

A beautiful rose. Be careful how you handle me, I would hate to stick you.

 

[omega2xx]

Someone here has this quote below their avatar "Reasoning with one who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to a dead man." (Thomas Paine).
It looks good on you.

Can you discuss the subject intelligently or are you here to expose you rude behavior?

I hope that thorn did not hurt to much.

 

[omega2xx]

A Gentle Reminder that a Hypothesis is Never Proven Correct, nor is a Theory Ever Proven to Be True

For really rather obvious reasons, a theory can only be falsified, not proved.

That is still the most ignorant statement someone can make about science. I gave you 2 examples of things science has proven. Which one has not been proven?

 

[ratiocinator]

I gave you 2 examples of things science has proven.

What two things?

I guess you couldn't be bothered to read the link (or even think about it, as far as I can see).

 

[omega2xx]

What two things?

Science has proven thre isd moe than one type of blood and that all living things have DNA.

If you want more check what the Nobel Prizes have been given for. None of the will be for opinions.

I guess you couldn't be bothered to read the link (or even think about it, as far as I can see).

I guess you couldn't be bothered to cut and paste what you read. Something that would have taken less than 30 seconds. I have to assume when you read it, you realized it was not really evidence, and knowing I would not read it, your faith bases system would not be exposed as the fraud it is.

 

[ratiocinator]

Science has proven thre isd moe than one type of blood and that all living things have DNA.

Those are not theories (as I think somebody already pointed out to you). I just can't believe that you are so totally ignorant of the scientific method. It's not like it's difficult to find out about...

I guess you couldn't be bothered to cut and paste what you read. Something that would have taken less than 30 seconds.

To what end? Flat contradiction of anything you don't like seems to be the hight of your reasoning ability. I pasted the full title, which a good summary of what was being said. It's from the National Science Teachers Association and it's about how teachers should be careful about describing what scientific theories are - neither "guesses" (as in the colloquial sense) nor proven facts.

I have to assume when you read it, you realized it was not really evidence,

It wasn't supposed to be evidence, it's education about the scientific method - something you are clearly in need of.

 

[omega2xx]

Those are not theories (as I think somebody already pointed out to you). I just can't believe that you are so totally ignorant of the scientific method. It's not like it's difficult to find out about...

They were at one time.

To what end?

To try and sdhow I amwrong any you are right of course.

Flat contradiction of anything you don't like seems to be the hight of your reasoning ability. I pasted the full title, which a good summary of what was being said. It's from the National Science Teachers Association and it's about how teachers should be careful about describing what scientific theories are - neither "guesses" (as in the colloquial sense) nor proven facts.

This not about me contradicting something, it is about YOU presenting the evidence you say the link offered. A task so simple somone should have done it long ago.

It wasn't supposed to be evidence, it's education about the scientific method - something you are clearly in need of.

The subject is not about the scientific method. It is about evidence to support what they say is true.

 

[ratiocinator]

They were at one time.

No, they were not. There being different blood types was a discovery - a theory is an explanation. The statement "all living things have DNA" needs qualification before it's anything much. We can say that we have discovered that all life that has been observed to date has DNA - but that's as far as it goes.

The subject is not about the scientific method.

Yes it is - have you lost track? This is about you thinking that scientific theories can be proved - and thus demonstrating stunning ignorance of the scientific method.

 

[omega2xx]

No, they were not. There being different blood types was a discovery - a theory is an explanation. The statement "all living things have DNA" needs qualification before it's anything much. We can say that we have discovered that all life that has been observed to date has DNA - but that's as far as it goes.


Yes it is - have you lost track? This is about you thinking that scientific theories can be proved - and thus demonstrating stunning ignorance of the scientific method.

If you can't discuss this without your childish insults, go back the third grade playground where it belongs.

 

[ratiocinator]

That may be most ignorant, obviously wrong statement anyone can make about science.

This is about you thinking that scientific theories can be proved - and thus demonstrating stunning ignorance of the scientific method.

If you can't discuss this without your childish insults, go back the third grade playground where it belongs.

 

[ChristineM]

I can defend what I say. You can't. You must be an evolutionists.

Yes i can and do, your deliberate ignorance is not my problem.