Turkey Will Stop Teaching Evolution in Secondary Schools

[DavidFirth]

I wonder.....does David actually think this is a valid reply? Does he truly believe others will see his response as thoughtful, intelligent, and compelling?

Jose, when you have a wildly insane theory you should expect wildly insane questions about it. Though the fact that you can't answer the question says it all.

Cats will just be cats. There, that's easy enough.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose, when you have a wildly insane theory you should expect wildly insane questions about it. Though the fact that you can't answer the question says it all.

Cats will just be cats. There, that's easy enough.

You didn't even address the issue I raised.

You claimed there were no transitional fossils. ImmortalFlame provided you a citation to a list of transitional fossils. Your response to that was "A "list of transitional fossils" proves nothing but the very vivid imaginations of scientists." My question to you is, do you honestly think that was a thoughtful, compelling response to what ImmortalFlame posted?

Also, you didn't answer a question I asked earlier: If I or anyone else gives you specific examples of successful predictions from evolutionary biology, will you 1) look at it, and 2) respond with something other than mere reflexive denial?

 

[DavidFirth]

You didn't even address the issue I raised.

You claimed there were no transitional fossils. ImmortalFlame provided you a citation to a list of transitional fossils. Your response to that was "A "list of transitional fossils" proves nothing but the very vivid imaginations of scientists." My question to you is, do you honestly think that was a thoughtful, compelling response to what ImmortalFlame posted?

Also, you didn't answer a question I asked earlier: If I or anyone else gives you specific examples of successful predictions from evolutionary biology, will you 1) look at it, and 2) respond with something other than mere reflexive denial?

The list means nothing unless you can prove the fossils are transitional, which we all know you cannot.

I can make a list of planets but I can't prove they're transitional because they aren't.

But isn't it a cute little list, though? Cute enough to fool some.

 

[Jose Fly]

The list means nothing unless you can prove the fossils are transitional, which we all know you cannot.

What to you is a "transitional fossil"? Given say, an evolutionary common ancestry between humans and other primates, what sort of characteristics would we expect to see in a "transitional"?

Also, you still didn't answer the questions....

Did you honestly think your response to ImmortalFlame's post was thoughtful and compelling?

If I or anyone else gives you specific examples of successful predictions from evolutionary biology, will you 1) look at it, and 2) respond with something other than mere reflexive denial?

 

[DavidFirth]

What to you is a "transitional fossil"? Given say, an evolutionary common ancestry between humans and other primates, what sort of characteristics would we expect to see in a "transitional"?

Also, you still didn't answer the questions....

Did you honestly think your response to ImmortalFlame's post was thoughtful and compelling?

If I or anyone else gives you specific examples of successful predictions from evolutionary biology, will you 1) look at it, and 2) respond with something other than mere reflexive denial?

I do not care to play any games with you or answer your questions.

If you've got proof, post it. Otherwise, you're wasting my time.

 

[Jose Fly]

I do not care to play any games with you or answer your questions.

And to you, that's an acceptable way of participating in a debate/discussion?

If you've got proof, post it. Otherwise, you're wasting my time.

Multiple people have already posted lots of material for you, and you repaid their efforts with simplistic, childish hand-waving (likely without even having looked at the material). So why you think after all that anyone would bother to do it again is a mystery.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Jose, when you have a wildly insane theory you should expect wildly insane questions about it. Though the fact that you can't answer the question says it all.

Cats will just be cats. There, that's easy enough.

The theory of evolution is supported by all available evidence accumulated over the last 150+ years by thousands of scientists all over the world. It could be easily falsified, given the right evidence (e.g. Rabbit fossils in pre-Cambrian layers) and yet it still stands as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth. The consensus of evidence points to evolution being a fact of life. If you call that wildly insane, I don't think you know the meaning of the words insane or wild.

 

[Valjean]

You mean to tell me that scientists are unable to study the DNA of cats and predict what they will become several hundred thousand years from now? I'm totally shocked. I had thought that you had thought you had a good theory. I guess not.

So 99% of species that ever existed are now extinct. None are transitional, and all existed from the beginning.
What an astonishingly diverse -- not to say crowded -- world that must have been!

 

[Jose Fly]

So 99% of species that ever existed are now extinct. None are transitional, and all existed from the beginning.
What an astonishingly diverse -- not to say crowded -- world that must have been!

Kinda like what Kathleen Hunt asked about the fossil record of the horse....

A Question for Creationists: Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if creationists insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?

Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the "God Created Everything To Look Just Like Evolution Happened" Theory.​

Doesn't look like very intelligent "design", does it?

 

[DavidFirth]

And to you, that's an acceptable way of participating in a debate/discussion?


Multiple people have already posted lots of material for you, and you repaid their efforts with simplistic, childish hand-waving (likely without even having looked at the material). So why you think after all that anyone would bother to do it again is a mystery.

That wasn't proof. Do you not understand what constitutes proof?

 

[Jose Fly]

That wasn't proof. Do you not understand what constitutes proof?

Apparently I don't. How about you explain what you think constitutes proof?

 

[DavidFirth]

The theory of evolution is supported by all available evidence accumulated over the last 150+ years by thousands of scientists all over the world. It could be easily falsified, given the right evidence (e.g. Rabbit fossils in pre-Cambrian layers) and yet it still stands as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth. The consensus of evidence points to evolution being a fact of life. If you call that wildly insane, I don't think you know the meaning of the words insane or wild.

Yeah. When you can prove it, come see me. Until then it remains a theory "supported by all available evidence accumulated over the last 150+ years by thousands of scientists all over the world."

The same evidence can and has been interpreted different ways. But your way is right. That's called bias.

 

[DavidFirth]

Apparently I don't. How about you explain what you think constitutes proof?

Good, you've got homework. That'll give you something to do for the next few days or so. Figure it out for yourself.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Except for people like myself, who believed what they were taught in high school about evolution, along with global cooling and peak oil, but learned more about the subjects later in life..

In high school, I was taught "evolution doesn't make any sense, it's just a theory, and god created everything anyways." I actually learned more about evolution here on RF, and was educated in it to a much greater extend than I even got in college biology.

I don't think I ever ridiculed it, quite the opposite, I was taught I should ridicule any other theory.

Science doesn't teach to ridicule theories, it teaches to use facts and data to offer rebuttals, repeat the experiment to either confirm findings or conflate them or uncover certain problems. But saying things like "it's just a theory" or "frogs will always be frogs," or try to promote as science an idea that doesn't meet the basic criteria, that is not science and it reveals a severe misunderstanding of the theory of evolution and the scientific method. Such as, with Intelligent Design, it has no falsifiability. It can't be proven wrong. Thus it is not science.

 

[Jose Fly]

Good, you've got homework. That'll give you something to do for the next few days or so. Figure it out for yourself.

So you really aren't interested in any sort of discussion or debate, are you? You're just going to make some assertions, and then refuse to answer all follow-up questions, explain yourself, look at anything (even stuff you asked for), or generally respond to anything anyone says to you.

Kinda makes me wonder just why you're here. Are you figuring your "I'll just tell everyone how things really are and ignore everything else" approach is persuasive? Or are you just trolling?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Until then it remains a theory

Gravity remains a theory. Want to jump off a 20-story building to test how much of "just a theory" it really is?

 

[DavidFirth]

So you really aren't interested in any sort of discussion or debate, are you? You're just going to make some assertions, and then refuse to answer all follow-up questions, explain yourself, look at anything (even stuff you asked for), or generally respond to anything anyone says to you.

Kinda makes me wonder just why you're here. Are you figuring your "I'll just tell everyone how things really are and ignore everything else" approach is persuasive? Or are you just trolling?

I proved that you can't prove anything. What more do you expect? I don't do dances or songs. Or are you just angry because your theory needs about a million or so years more work?

 

[DavidFirth]

Gravity remains a theory. Want to jump off a 20-story building to test how much of "just a theory" it really is?

Well, I never claimed it was anything more than that.

 

[Jose Fly]

I proved that you can't prove anything.

If you can't prove anything, why do you keep asking for proof of evolution?

 

[DavidFirth]

If you can't prove anything, why do you keep asking for proof of evolution?

Because I am showing you that Creation should also be taught in schools because the TOE is just another version of "how we all got here."

Turkey has just as much right to ban evolution as the USA does to ban creation.