Fallacies of Evolution Redux

Discussion in 'Science' started by ChemEngineer, May 9, 2017.

  1. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey again Pilgrim!
    God/Dog isn't my hang up, it's yours.

    He/she/it/they are the reason you make up all this crap to deny overwhelming Evidence of Evolution and Pretend to be scientific/analytic. Poorly though you do.
    Were there no evolution, creatures must have been created, roughly as is.
    So Goddidit is Your 'theory'/fantasy, and unlike Evolution has NO evidence.
    Zero
    . (even if you already hadn't elucidated/admitted it)

    ie, your false logic/irrationalizations:
    What?
    Evidence does not have to be an "observed Phenomenon".
    WTF!/Doh!

    People are convicted of murder every day (Beyond a reasonable doubt) with NO eyewitnesses.
    And many/most of those cases have less Evidence than Evolution.
    Though they BOTH oft DO include such things as Bones, DNA analysis, time sequences, etc.
    Evo has much more of course, such as correctly predicting intermediate species will be found. (and what they will comprise)
    Predictive value is another Affirmation of evolution, or any True theory/FACT.

    And what is this Fake Sci-guy?
    You're complaining about "species"?
    You don't believe in species do you?
    Do you believe there are Two Chimp Species and Two Gorilla Species?
    Or do you call that "micro-evolution", and like other creationsist deal in "Kinds", not real taxonomy?

    Your posts are so indignant/condescending, but so Deluded.
    Faith (belief withOUT evidence) will do that to people.

    You can't pull your semantic crap with me Padre!
    You do a bit more Tedious/longer con job than most godists,
    but just like ALL of them...
    you're demanding to see a Video of a human coming out a Rhino's ass before you will believe/cop to Evo.

    This should be good!
    (or more likely LOOONNNNGGGG and diversionary)

    PS: we last met a link below, and you WHIFFED despite my numbering for easy but non-evasive reply:
    But loved your god-and-devil voodoo/sermon!
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/a-few-notes-to-maccabee.459806/#post-1066279298
    Still waiting
    `
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2018
    Cosmo likes this.
  2. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure I did, and you dismissed it, just as you have all the evidence presented to you. Then, rudely, you even dismiss the efforts of those who took the trouble of spoonfeeding you evidence by saying, "Nobody has presented any evidence".
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2018
  3. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The word of which God ? There are more then are 21 major religions out there. Tell us, which one we’re suppose to wave that red flag in front of.
     
  4. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Non believers in evolution don’t have an open door policy when it comes to facts and evidence.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  5. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Right. Despite on of the magical thinker's favorite tactics being to accuse the evidence-based thinker of "closed-mindedness", the roles are precisely the opposite. The evidence-based thinker will change his mind, based on new information. He has no choice but to believe what the evidence shows, despite his personal preferences (It sure would be ice if smoking didn't cause cancer, I used to love to smoke). The wielder of faith has no room for such change of heart, or new information. The person of faith cannot be "wrong", or he must abandon the faith entirely. Once that faith has been internalized, it takes a powerful force indeed to dislodge it.... more than mere evidence can apply...

    The evidence-based thinker is open=minded, while the person of faith is closed-minded.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  6. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which God out of the 21 major religions are you talking about ? . Christianity ? Well, Catholics believe in evolution as of the 1996.
    They were kind of forced to because Gregor Mendel who was called the father of modern genetics was a Catholic Monk.
    So, which religion does your God represent ? .
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2018
  7. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even though Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, was a devout Christian ( Catholic Monk)
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2018
    Cosmo likes this.
  8. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A fine example of a person of faith making a better choice by using evidence based thought.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  9. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Especially when you consider early Catholic monks discovered and worked with the “ evidence.” The Catholic Church is very flexible with their beliefs in evolution. Like, there are no fossil remains of the modern cow. We bred them into existence using natural selection.....and horny bulls.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2018
    Cosmo likes this.
  10. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,532
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I only posted this because I found it ironic that right after we had our chat about the Nobel prize this comes along and I thought you would see the irony too and have a good laugh.

    I do have to disagree with a few points you made however.

    Evolution and the mechanics behind it are two totally different things. Yes, Darwin supported natural selection and that is what biologists support, but as you showed, there are many other alternatives to natural selection so even if natural selection was disproved and something like theistic evolution or Lamarckism was found to be true, it still would not disprove evolution. Remember evolution is just the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations which can result in a new species. How it's done, does not change the fact that it has happened.

    So, there is no Biology Nobel Prize, so biologists have to settle for either the Nobel Prize in Medicine/Physiology, or Chemistry since most of Biology is Chemistry.

    I cannot show that their method is different from Selective Breeding because Selective Breeding IS a form of directed evolution. Again, like I said above, evolution does not have to have natural selection as its mechanic. In fact, their methods are very similar to evolutionary programming in which programmers run programs in simulators that cause the programs to evolve on their own without direct human intervention.

    Now I take offence that you think somehow your time is more precious than mine. I did do the research, however I found it exactly as advertised so I had no reason to comment on it beyond wanting to share it.

    And don't forget, we are talking about evolution, not Darwin.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2018
    Cosmo and dagosa like this.
  11. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Many Catholics were actually not very happy about this knowledge, and many still aren't, to this day. they see our knowledge of genetics as "playing God".


    Well, until they need it, like, when they get sick, themselves. ;)
     
  12. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hear you. I remember going to CCD indoctrination classes and being conflicted with our public school education in biology. So, whose telling the truth ? I think the answer is, modern religions are really political parties which depend upon parishioners following the party line.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2018
  13. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,532
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who's telling the truth? Science.
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You were making claims about what Einstein believed wrt religion.

    This quote clears that up.
     
  15. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We were wasting two hours every Monday listening to the tooth fairy. But, we know why we went. We all did it for the same reason, our parents.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2018
  16. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The same deniers of evolution appear in discussions against AGW. Somehow, they can’t accept the fact that our ancestors all walked out of Africa and migrated everywhere else. That must frost their Lilly white butts.
     
  17. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They are all Bible "literalists". All of them. This isn't rocket surgery. Their true objection is simple and clear. But they put on this dog and pony show, instead of just voicing their only true objection. Why? My guess is that they know that just doesn't cut it anymore.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2018
    Cosmo likes this.
  18. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're mixing all sorts of stuff here.

    First of all, let's remember that those who got the Nobel in Chemistry here were engineers at least as much (and perhaps more) than they were pure scientists. They figured out ways to control and use evolutionary processes that already exist in nature.

    In nature, selection comes in many forms. When people do selective breeding, it's just a matter of the people performing the selection aspect. Suggesting that isn't evolution is nonsense. It's clearly evolution guided by the people who are doing the selection.

    Your idea that the experts making judgement for the Nobel prizes don't know what they are talking about is really rather ridiculous.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  19. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    These guys are continually going down the rabbit hole that the smartest people are all realestate brokers and people who watch the stock market. They measure intelligence by accumulated wealth, even if its stolen or inherited, both of which applies to Trump. In the eyes of Trumpets, if you're honest and smart, you’re a smuch not to be trusted. Obviously, if you can’t lie for power, you can’t be trusted in their eyes.
     
    WillReadmore and Cosmo like this.
  20. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Their one true objection is still, slavery was outlawed...slavery of both women and non whites. In their good book, the good guys are all white....and male.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2018
    Cosmo likes this.
  21. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When your intent is to deny and obfuscate well-demonstrated, evidence based work, it helps to introduce as much noise and confusion as possible, and creationists excel at that.
     
  22. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    `
    [​IMG]

    `
     
    DarkDaimon and dagosa like this.
  23. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I like the glasses. Good touch.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2018
  24. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    [QUOTE="WillReadmore, post: 1069688847, member: 64140".]

    I gave you exactly what you asked for. Now, you just say it isn't science???

    Hilarious!

    [/QUOTE]

    After me repeating 3 times you couldn't understand what I was asking for.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2018
  25. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It would be nice if you ever tried to address the words you quote.
    I said and you quoted:

    Observation of chicken breaking out of an egg is observation of an event, a happening, a phenomena.

    Observation of an eggshell broken in a certain way is a forensic evidence of chicken broken out the egg, because the phenomenon of chicken breaking out of eggs had been already observed and described many times.


    It had been already observed that no person has the same fingerprints, - this is the observed phenomenon. Then and only then fingerprints become an evidence.

    You first shoot a gun multiple times into a substance with the composition similar to the composition of human bodies and only then, after you observe and measure, you have an evidence that this or that body was shut from such and such distance and that fact becomes an evidence.

    Forensic science, a natural science starts from observation of natural phenomenon first, but not from observation of an evidence.

    There may be no evidence of appearance of new species out of the old ones, because the phenomena, the event of appearance of new species out of the old ones has never been observed and will never be observed.

    Evidence of appearance of new species out of previous ones with no such phenomena ever observed is nothing, but a fantasy, mental delusion.
     
    usfan likes this.

Share This Page