The Mystery Thread

[Earthling]

Um......you didn't answer the questions I asked at all. Is there a reason?

I don't think so, buddy. I scrolled and I see no "at all" mentioned, in the form of a question or not.

Is there a reason? I think it's (the theory of evolution) laughable. Nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I used to like to watch nature documentaries. Once I was watching an ABC documentary on the Amazon river and a respected Zoologist who specialized in Ichthyology went there to study the local's knowledge on the subject. He sees this fish eating nuts that fell into the river and he says "That bump on his head evolved there to crack open the nuts." Or something like that, it was a long time ago.

That's evidence for evolution.

I have been shown pictures of the skulls of apes lined up with the skull of a human. Evidence for evolution. The pepper moth I've mentioned before. All sorts of examples that were thought to be "evidence for evolution" that were fraudulent.

There's lots of evidence for evolution! Tons and tons of it. You know what though? When a creationist says to me that the trees and grass etc. are evidence of God I say - no. They are evidence of trees and grass.

Wild claims that you cannot support are not evidence of anything. You have a tendency to misunderstand the sciences. Try to find sources that support your claims. Anecdote is worthless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I passed the class. I told them what I knew they wanted to hear. I did the same with the nonsense they spouted as American and World history.

Then why did you take it five times? I don't know of any school that has five years of biology, especially five years of biology focusing on evolution.

Blah, Blah, Blah. You will continue insisting upon your propaganda only until I say I believe in the nonsense. Then, like magic I will be ignorant no more.

I do wish I had time to learn it like I did the Bible, but, I don't. I'm sure you don't want to take the time to learn the Bible which you think is nonsense, so be easy on me, baby, there ain't nothin' in here worth stealing.

Please, try to be honest. You are the one that has propaganda. I offered to go over the basics with you so that you could begin to understand the sciences. You tend to run away rather than to try to learn. And you really did not "learn the Bible". Instead you have only picked and chosen the parts you want to believe with your own rather shoddy interpretation. You do not like to refer to experts that understood both the language and the history of the areas who have a clearer understanding of the Bible than either your or I have. I know that I do not have as proper of an understanding of the Bible as do people that have studied the topic seriously. That is why I will refer to them. You have your own preferred interpretation and try to bend the Bible to that. Proper interpretation means that you will probably not like some of what the Bible actually means.

 

[Earthling]

Wild claims that you cannot support are not evidence of anything. You have a tendency to misunderstand the sciences. Try to find sources that support your claims. Anecdote is worthless.

What claims? Evolution isn't true? I can find millions of sources on the Internet, but that doesn't make it true, does it? You want me to find a source that you approve of? Okay. Give it to me. Give me a reliable source of your choice that evolution isn't true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What claims? Evolution isn't true? I can find millions of sources on the Internet, but that doesn't make it true, does it? You want me to find a source that you approve of? Okay. Give it to me. Give me a reliable source of your choice that evolution isn't true.

Your claim about the ichthyologist for one.

There are no reliable sources that I know of that tell us that evolution is not true. Those sources tend to be written by idiots and liars.

Once again, why not take some time to learn the basics? Why are you afraid to learn? The bare bone basics does not take that long to learn. And if you do so properly you will find two things. That there are mountains of evidence for evolution. And that there is no reliable evidence for creationism.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't think so, buddy. I scrolled and I see no "at all" mentioned, in the form of a question or not.

Is there a reason? I think it's (the theory of evolution) laughable. Nonsense.

Let's try this again. Here are the questions I'm interested in seeing your answers to.....

Do you truly believe there's absolutely no evidence at all for evolution? If so, how then do you explain the fact that the scientific community has had the opposite view for well over a century? Are they just bad at their jobs? Is it the biggest conspiracy in history? Are they under a magic spell?

How do you explain all the non-atheists who are just fine with evolution?

 

[Earthling]

Your claim about the ichthyologist for one.

I saw what I saw. For you to say that I didn't is kind of stupid. For me to expect you to believe me is equally stupid, however . . . I saw what I saw. I tried to look it up online, but it's not there.

There are no reliable sources that I know of that tell us that evolution is not true. Those sources tend to be written by idiots and liars.

No, you're not biased. Really. No opposition whatsoever. Is that odd for a scientific theory?

Once again, why not take some time to learn the basics? Why are you afraid to learn? The bare bone basics does not take that long to learn. And if you do so properly you will find two things. That there are mountains of evidence for evolution. And that there is no reliable evidence for creationism.

I don't care about creationism as I've seen it presented. Those people don't know the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I saw what I saw. For you to say that I didn't is kind of stupid. For me to expect you to believe me is equally stupid, however . . . I saw what I saw. I tried to look it up online, but it's not there.

I am betting that at best you misunderstood the man. For you to deny that is "kind of stupid". Why even bring up a claim that you cannot support? You have already demonstrated and inability to understand simple concepts. This is why you should not make claims that you cannot support.

No, you're not biased. Really. No opposition whatsoever. Is that odd for a scientific theory?

No. That is quite common for theories with tons of evidence for them. And please, I did not say "no opposition" I said not evidence against it. There is no evidence against the theory of gravity. Unless you can think of some. You could easily prove me wrong if I was wrong. See if you can find some scientific evidence against the theory of evolution. Of course to do that you would need to understand the concept of evidence.

I don't care about creationism as I've seen it presented. Those people don't know the Bible.

They merely disagree with your interpretation of the Bible. The Bible does appear to support creationism, but then the Bible is wrong quite often. You merely can see that a YEC belief is wrong. That does not mean that they do not "know the Bible". If you properly understood the Bible you would know that it is wrong time after time.

Tell me, how do you interpret the Noah's Ark myth?

 

[Earthling]

I am betting that at best you misunderstood the man. For you to deny that is "kind of stupid". Why even bring up a claim that you cannot support? You have already demonstrated and inability to understand simple concepts. This is why you should not make claims that you cannot support.

No. That is quite common for theories with tons of evidence for them. And please, I did not say "no opposition" I said not evidence against it. There is no evidence against the theory of gravity. Unless you can think of some. You could easily prove me wrong if I was wrong. See if you can find some scientific evidence against the theory of evolution. Of course to do that you would need to understand the concept of evidence.

They merely disagree with your interpretation of the Bible. The Bible does appear to support creationism, but then the Bible is wrong quite often. You merely can see that a YEC belief is wrong. That does not mean that they do not "know the Bible". If you properly understood the Bible you would know that it is wrong time after time.

Tell me, how do you interpret the Noah's Ark myth?

Once upon a time there was a secretary who scoffed at all of the scientific SPECULATION on gorillas or apes or something, so she went and lived with them for a while and demonstrated that all the SCIENCE was wrong. She was given an honorary degree, which is a joke, and now everyone knows that the science was WRONG.

Once upon a time there was a patent clerk . . .

 

[Earthling]

Let's try this again. Here are the questions I'm interested in seeing your answers to.....

Do you truly believe there's absolutely no evidence at all for evolution?

Not at all. I believe there's lots of evidence for evolution. Evidence is subjective.

If so, how then do you explain the fact that the scientific community has had the opposite view for well over a century?

They are wrong. Simple. Their interpretation of the evidence is biased. Has science ever been wrong for centuries before? Answer that question.

Are they just bad at their jobs?

I would say so.

Is it the biggest conspiracy in history?

It's the nature of science. They are right until they say they were wrong, then, of course, they are right again. But always wrong.

Are they under a magic spell?

No. They are under pressure to fit within a mold that exists or create a better one. Until they create a "better" one they are stuck with this one.

How do you explain all the non-atheists who are just fine with evolution?

Explain them? Why would I want to explain them? I don't have to explain them and I don't have to agree with them.

Read this. Ezekiel 18:4 How do you explain the majority of Christians who believe in the Bible that say the soul is immortal. It doesn't die. You investigate the influence Socrates immortal soul has had on Jewish then Christian thinking beginning with Alexander the Great's entrance into the temple of Jerusalem followed by Greek philosophy infiltrating Jewish then Christian thinking.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not at all. I believe there's lots of evidence for evolution. Evidence is subjective.

Earlier you stated "It's easy to say you have "mountains of evidence for evolution" when all you have is nothing." Can you clarify these two contradictory statements?

They are wrong. Simple. Their interpretation of the evidence is biased.

Biased how? And can you give an example?

Has science ever been wrong for centuries before? Answer that question.

Sure they have, just as they've been correct. I'm not sure what your point is, unless it's something like "science isn't perfect 100% of the time, therefore it's always wrong", which makes absolutely no sense.

I would say so.

So you believe scientists from all over the world over the last century are collectively bad at their jobs. I gotta ask....how do you know? Have you spent any time actually looking at their work? Do you read scientific journals? Attend conferences?

No. They are under pressure to fit within a mold that exists or create a better one.

Under pressure by who?

Explain them? Why would I want to explain them? I don't have to explain them and I don't have to agree with them.

You misunderstand. Earlier you seemed to be equating evolution with atheism, but the fact is, the majority of "evolutionists" are theists (it's mathematically impossible for it to be otherwise, given that atheists make up, at most, around 10% of the population). So what I'm getting at is, why equate evolution with atheism if most "evolutionists" aren't atheists?

Read this. Ezekiel 18:4 How do you explain the majority of Christians who believe in the Bible that say the soul is immortal. It doesn't die. You investigate the influence Socrates immortal soul has had on Jewish then Christian thinking beginning with Alexander the Great's entrance into the temple of Jerusalem followed by Greek philosophy infiltrating Jewish then Christian thinking.

I explain by noting that Christians generally believe and accept the writings within their holy scriptures. So that they believe the Bible when it says the soul is immortal is hardly surprising.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I rejected evolution long before I had any theological claims.

When you decided to reject the scientific method is far less important than why you decided to reject the scientific method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once upon a time there was a secretary who scoffed at all of the scientific SPECULATION on gorillas or apes or something, so she went and lived with them for a while and demonstrated that all the SCIENCE was wrong. She was given an honorary degree, which is a joke, and now everyone knows that the science was WRONG.

Once upon a time there was a patent clerk . . .

Once again bearing false witness against your neighbor. Yes, a lot was misunderstood about gorillas in the past. Your poor portrayal of that does not help you side at all.

Instead of saying obviously false things about other people why not try to learn a little? Why are you so afraid?

 

[Earthling]

Earlier you stated "It's easy to say you have "mountains of evidence for evolution" when all you have is nothing." Can you clarify these two contradictory statements?

Sure, though I don't understand what is so difficult about it. I can present a mountain of evidence for or against anything. If a mountain of evidence is produced to establish something and that evidence isn't very convincing then it amounts to nothing.

A police officer responds to a call that there has been a homicide committed in a dark alley behind my apartment. I seen it. I called it in. After I call it in I watch the scene where the dead man has been stabbed. A man walks down the dark alley and stumbles over something before he sees the dead body. He picks up a bloody knife, just as a cop comes around the corner. The cop arrests the man with the knife and uses the knife, with his fingerprints on it as evidence for the man having killed the dead man.

What does that evidence mean to me?

Biased how? And can you give an example?

I could give several. One is Piltdown man.

Sure they have, just as they've been correct. I'm not sure what your point is, unless it's something like "science isn't perfect 100% of the time, therefore it's always wrong", which makes absolutely no sense.

No. That would be like saying theology, or me myself has been wrong and so is always wrong. Recently I've taken a liking to saying "science is always wrong." What I mean by that is it's correctable. Science isn't the discovery of what we already know.

So you believe scientists from all over the world over the last century are collectively bad at their jobs. I gotta ask....how do you know? Have you spent any time actually looking at their work? Do you read scientific journals? Attend conferences?

I think it must be the smocks. Something about smocks. Lab coats give me the willies.

Under pressure by who?

WHAT?!

Oh, I've got to scroll on that one . . . the scientific community. Science itself.

You misunderstand. Earlier you seemed to be equating evolution with atheism, but the fact is, the majority of "evolutionists" are theists (it's mathematically impossible for it to be otherwise, given that atheists make up, at most, around 10% of the population). So what I'm getting at is, why equate evolution with atheism if most "evolutionists" aren't atheists?

None of that matters to me. Why does this keep coming up? It doesn't matter. If all atheist don't believe in evolution and all theists believe in evolution . . . doesn't matter to me. Has no bearing whatsoever on my thinking. I don't think that way.

I explain by noting that Christians generally believe and accept the writings within their holy scriptures. So that they believe the Bible when it says the soul is immortal is hardly surprising.

Listen! The Bible doesn't say the soul is immortal. Ezekiel 18:4. So why do they believe it's immortal? Alexander the Great.

 

[Earthling]

Once again bearing false witness against your neighbor. Yes, a lot was misunderstood about gorillas in the past. Your poor portrayal of that does not help you side at all.

Instead of saying obviously false things about other people why not try to learn a little? Why are you so afraid?

Shut up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Shut up.

That is rather rude. Just because you are wrong and know it is not excuse to be rude.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, though I don't understand what is so difficult about it. I can present a mountain of evidence for or against anything. If a mountain of evidence is produced to establish something and that evidence isn't very convincing then it amounts to nothing.

Actually you can't. And this claim of yours tells us that you once again do not understand the nature of evidence.

A police officer responds to a call that there has been a homicide committed in a dark alley behind my apartment. I seen it. I called it in. After I call it in I watch the scene where the dead man has been stabbed. A man walks down the dark alley and stumbles over something before he sees the dead body. He picks up a bloody knife, just as a cop comes around the corner. The cop arrests the man with the knife and uses the knife, with his fingerprints on it as evidence for the man having killed the dead man.

What does that evidence mean to me?

That you have no understanding of forensic science at all.

I could give several. One is Piltdown man.

How is that biased? Do you even understand what Piltdown Man was? It was never well accepted outside of England. It was a fraud perpetuated against evolution. There have been countless frauds in Christianity. Are people that make false evidence for Christianity evidence against the concept? If not why bring up Piltdown man?

No. That would be like saying theology, or me myself has been wrong and so is always wrong. Recently I've taken a liking to saying "science is always wrong." What I mean by that is it's correctable. Science isn't the discovery of what we already know.

That seems to be the level of your reasoning quite often here.

I think it must be the smocks. Something about smocks. Lab coats give me the willies.

Lab coats are not worn by most scientists. You have a very strange view of science.

WHAT?!

Oh, I've got to scroll on that one . . . the scientific community. Science itself.

The only pressure from the scientific community is to give accurate answers that can be tested and confirmed. That is all.

 

[Earthling]

That is rather rude. Just because you are wrong and know it is not excuse to be rude.

You're right. And just because you are wrong don't mean you have to shut up. Now shut up.

Stop saying I'm ignorant, I'm wrong, I'm this and that. I don't trust your opinion on the subject so stop wasting our time.

 

[Earthling]

Actually you can't. And this claim of yours tells us that you once again do not understand the nature of evidence.

You labor under the delusion that if evidence agrees with you or science it is right and if it doesn't it's wrong. That's not very scientific is it.

That you have no understanding of forensic science at all.

Oh, really, now. What profession did I retire from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're right. And just because you are wrong don't mean you have to shut up. Now shut up.

Stop saying I'm ignorant, I'm wrong, I'm this and that. I don't trust your opinion on the subject so stop wasting our time.

Why make such obviously false claims? I can continually demonstrate that I am correct. When I or others request that you support your claims all you can say is something on the order of "that is what I heard".

And if you don't like it when your errors and ignorance are called out then learn. It really won't take that long for you to learn the basics of science. I and others have offered to help you many times over. By the way, I don't go by my opinion. Once again I can and will support any claims that I make. You never seem to be able to do that.