+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 17 of 43 FirstFirst ... 713141516171819202127 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 424

Thread: Fallacies of Evolution

  1. #161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Battle3 View Post
    I have not stated I deny the theory of evolution, nor have I based my posts on religion.

    You are an example of what happens when someone (myself in this case) does not spout obedience to the theory of evolution. In your mind, people are either totally accepting of the theory of evolution as the Truth, or are religious anti-science troglodytes. To you, there is no room for criticism, questions, or a scientific curiosity.

    - - - Updated - - -



    See post 156
    I think you have in infinite loop going on there.
    "Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russel

  2. Likes tecoyah liked this post
  3. #162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ecco View Post
    That's an interesting choice of wording - "scientifically". So, from a religious standpoint, you are not "an origins agnostic". But, hey, we already knew that.
    There are two competing "theories" regarding the existence of humans on this earth:
    • Evolution
    • Creationism

    You argue vociferously against evolution. You never say anything about creationism.
    • That is pretty clear evidence that you are not an origins agnostic at all.
    • That is pretty clear evidence that you are a believer in GodDidIt.

    I have found that there are two categories of people who deny evolution:
    • Those who openly assert that they know GodDidIt because it's written in the bible.
    • Those who try to hide their fundamentalist beliefs and make feeble attempts to try to argue against the science.

    I have more respect for the former.
    Wrong. Your relevant religious beliefs are what drive your denial.
    I already replied to this, which you conveniently deleted. You are still dodging the questions, & are trying to make this a religious debate, over beliefs. This is about science. If you have absolute proof of another theory of origins, then that would be a major blow to the other beliefs. But we are employing the scientific method to THIS theory, not others. You are welcome to critique other theories, if you wish, but that is not the topic, here.
    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    It seems to me that your obsession with religious beliefs is a projection. You cannot frame the debate in a scientific mindset, and assume nobody else can, either.
    But you are mistaken in this. Some people can distinguish between empirical evidence and beliefs. That is what science is about.
    Quote Originally Posted by rahl View Post
    You understand that saying no evidence has been presented is a demonstrable lie right?
    Then demonstrate it. You have not demonstrated anything, except your ability to dodge & weave & say nothing... oh, and engage in ad hominem.

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkDaimon View Post
    Since it usually takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of years for a new species to evolve, chances are pretty good we will not see it in our lifetime.
    That is convenient. So now you admit you have no evidence, because what you assume takes too long, & cannot be observed. IOW, it is an EXTRAPOLATED phenomenon, with no observable evidence. That has been my point all along.

    ..and you still evade the question, 'HOW?'

    How does the genetic structure change, creating a new species? How do you get enough horizontal, cumulative changes to affect a major vertical jump in the genome, creating an entirely new species? HOW do you get ANY new genes or traits? Hiding behind time does not work, with the scientific method. That is an excuse & wishful thinking, not scientific evidence.

    I am getting weary of repeating myself, & getting no empirical evidence to examine. Why has nobody been able to provide even one example of structural, vertical change in the genome? We observe the descendancy in the canid family, & can follow the mtDNA as the thread of life, indicating descendancy. But why has there been nothing presented to show the 'slow, accumulated changes' from the canid to another, or some other to the canid? Canids remain canids. They vary within their structure, but they do NOT change that basic structure. They can breed with each other, demonstrate a lot of morphological differences, & are connected via the mtDNA as related.

    Observable, repeatable science, with hundreds of years of application, says that macro evolution is impossible.. it is the opposite of micro evolution, & it does not work. You never get slow, accumulated changes in the genome, but mere variability. They do not add up, but remain branches on a family tree, ending with a few narrow trait samples.

    It is probably best if i bow out of this subject for a while.. since nobody, it seems, wishes to honor the questions in the OP. I'll watch the thread, in case someone does want to debate this scientifically, but i'm not really interested in bickering with unscientific fools, or hate filled ideologues who feel they have to attack anyone who dares question their sacred beliefs.
    Town drunks or village idiots is what the collective produces. It takes a family to raise a child.

  4. #163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    I am getting weary of repeating myself, & getting no empirical evidence to examine. Why has nobody been able to provide even one example of structural, vertical change in the genome? We observe the descendancy in the canid family, & can follow the mtDNA as the thread of life, indicating descendancy. But why has there been nothing presented to show the 'slow, accumulated changes' from the canid to another, or some other to the canid? Canids remain canids. They vary within their structure, but they do NOT change that basic structure. They can breed with each other, demonstrate a lot of morphological differences, & are connected via the mtDNA as related.

    Observable, repeatable science, with hundreds of years of application, says that macro evolution is impossible.. it is the opposite of micro evolution, & it does not work. You never get slow, accumulated changes in the genome, but mere variability. They do not add up, but remain branches on a family tree, ending with a few narrow trait samples.

    It is probably best if i bow out of this subject for a while.. since nobody, it seems, wishes to honor the questions in the OP. I'll watch the thread, in case someone does want to debate this scientifically, but i'm not really interested in bickering with unscientific fools, or hate filled ideologues who feel they have to attack anyone who dares question their sacred beliefs.
    I am not a biologist, so I can't answer your questions directly, but that doesn't mean that science has not. See, the issue is not whether you have an argument that someone on this forum can or cannot answer, it is about who do the rest of us trust, you, an anonymous Internet poster, or the 98% of scientists that say that evolution is true.

    See, the debate has been already settled. You are trying to argue a court case after the jury has already handed down the verdict.
    "Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russel

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Battle3 View Post
    I have not stated I deny the theory of evolution
    Sure you have...
    127
    Because a hypothesis is the only one that humanity can come up with does not make it the Truth, or even a good approximation of the Truth.
    128
    Its obvious the experiments have not shown evolution is true or there would be no raging debate.
    155
    • Obviously the evidence is not conclusive and many people do not believe the theory of evolution is at all complete.
    • It's not the only one people have come up with. It's the one that has been enhanced and enriched for over 100 years with support from evidence from many different areas of scientific inquiry.
    • The only raging debate is between people who deny evolution on religious grounds and scientists and lay people who put science ahead of their silly superstitious beliefs.
    • It isn't complete. Science will continue to enhance and work out the finer and finer details.





    Quote Originally Posted by Battle3 View Post
    nor have I based my posts on religion.
    Your religious beliefs are the root of your denial of evolution. You can try to deny it. Just post whether or not you find to be the Genesis account in the bible to be accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Battle3 View Post
    You are an example of what happens when someone (myself in this case) does not spout obedience to the theory of evolution. In your mind, people are either totally accepting of the theory of evolution as the Truth, or are religious anti-science troglodytes.
    I had never thought of using the word "troglodyte". But, it does fit.
    trog·lo·dyte
    ˈträɡləˌdīt/

    noun
    plural noun: troglodytes
    (especially in prehistoric times) a person who lived in a cave.
    a hermit.
    a person who is regarded as being deliberately ignorant or old-fashioned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Battle3 View Post
    To you, there is no room for criticism, questions, or a scientific curiosity.
    There has been and continues to be criticism and professional debate within the scientific community ever since Darwin first published. That's why we know more about evolution today than we did 100 years ago. That's how science works. That's why TOE is accepted as the answer to the question of human's existence on earth. There is no scientific research that counters the validity of the overall concept of TOE.

  6. Likes Cosmo liked this post
  7. #165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    I already replied to this, which you conveniently deleted. You are still dodging the questions, & are trying to make this a religious debate, over beliefs. This is about science. If you have absolute proof of another theory of origins, then that would be a major blow to the other beliefs. But we are employing the scientific method to THIS theory, not others. You are welcome to critique other theories, if you wish, but that is not the topic, here.


    Then demonstrate it. You have not demonstrated anything, except your ability to dodge & weave & say nothing... oh, and engage in ad hominem.


    That is convenient. So now you admit you have no evidence, because what you assume takes too long, & cannot be observed. IOW, it is an EXTRAPOLATED phenomenon, with no observable evidence. That has been my point all along.

    ..and you still evade the question, 'HOW?'

    How does the genetic structure change, creating a new species? How do you get enough horizontal, cumulative changes to affect a major vertical jump in the genome, creating an entirely new species? HOW do you get ANY new genes or traits? Hiding behind time does not work, with the scientific method. That is an excuse & wishful thinking, not scientific evidence.

    I am getting weary of repeating myself, & getting no empirical evidence to examine. Why has nobody been able to provide even one example of structural, vertical change in the genome? We observe the descendancy in the canid family, & can follow the mtDNA as the thread of life, indicating descendancy. But why has there been nothing presented to show the 'slow, accumulated changes' from the canid to another, or some other to the canid? Canids remain canids. They vary within their structure, but they do NOT change that basic structure. They can breed with each other, demonstrate a lot of morphological differences, & are connected via the mtDNA as related.

    Observable, repeatable science, with hundreds of years of application, says that macro evolution is impossible.. it is the opposite of micro evolution, & it does not work. You never get slow, accumulated changes in the genome, but mere variability. They do not add up, but remain branches on a family tree, ending with a few narrow trait samples.

    It is probably best if i bow out of this subject for a while.. since nobody, it seems, wishes to honor the questions in the OP. I'll watch the thread, in case someone does want to debate this scientifically, but i'm not really interested in bickering with unscientific fools, or hate filled ideologues who feel they have to attack anyone who dares question their sacred beliefs.
    We don't need as rational people to fill in these details as long as science is working on them and trying to find the truth, we just need to show the process is the most convincing explanation for the evidence we have including DNA now and that it works at some level such as in bacteria and viruses and in distressed populations or even in a laboratory using genetic manipulation. See its the one theory that makes sense of the evidence we have until such time another theory takes its place with a better understanding. But even if aliens came down, tinkered with life for ages and we found out the theory would still work. And since 99% of life in the history of our planet is extinct evolution seems pretty damned effective at separating the winners from the losers and we fortunately made it until we are replaced in some manner maybe by super intelligent sentient androids or something.

    We are damned sure Black Holes exist but haven't seen one directly or studied one up close, yet Black Hole Theory is pretty sound but we still can't explain them completely.
    Last edited by tkolter; Jan 10 2017 at 07:23 PM.
    From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Louis Jean Joseph Charles Blanc (French Communist)

    Ordained in the Universal Life Church (Modesto) and hold a Doctor of Metaphysics Degree (DM) so refer to me a Cleric Dr. Kolter

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ecco
    That's an interesting choice of wording - "scientifically". So, from a religious standpoint, you are not "an origins agnostic". But, hey, we already knew that.
    There are two competing "theories" regarding the existence of humans on this earth:
    Evolution
    Creationism

    You argue vociferously against evolution. You never say anything about creationism.
    That is pretty clear evidence that you are not an origins agnostic at all.
    That is pretty clear evidence that you are a believer in GodDidIt.

    I have found that there are two categories of people who deny evolution:
    Those who openly assert that they know GodDidIt because it's written in the bible.
    Those who try to hide their fundamentalist beliefs and make feeble attempts to try to argue against the science.

    I have more respect for the former.
    Wrong. Your relevant religious beliefs are what drive your denial.

    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    I already replied to this, which you conveniently deleted.
    Well, here is the rest of your post #152...
    I have said before, that scientifically, I am an origins agnostic. I don't have enough evidence to draw a conclusion. The physical evidence is not conclusive.

    My beliefs and opinions are irrelevant in a scientific inquiry. Facts, experimental data, and observations are the weapons of choice for the scientific method.

    It seems to me that your obsession with religious beliefs is a projection. You cannot frame the debate in a scientific mindset, and assume nobody else can, either.

    But you are mistaken in this. Some people can distinguish between empirical evidence and beliefs. That is what science is about.
    I just addressed the first paragraph (See above) because of the way you worded it.
    that, scientifically, I am an origins agnostic


    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    You are still dodging the questions, & are trying to make this a religious debate, over beliefs. This is about science.
    I haven't dodged anything. You are one of the people who refuses to state their beliefs on the origins of humans on this earth. Since the only theory in opposition to TOE is religious creationism, yes, the debate must include religious beliefs. Within the scientific communities, there is no debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    If you have absolute proof of another theory of origins, then that would be a major blow to the other beliefs. But we are employing the scientific method to THIS theory, not others. You are welcome to critique other theories, if you wish, but that is not the topic, here.
    Critique of other theories is topic here. You made it so. Your list of questions in your OP is just like the list of questions that religious based groups like the Creation Institute and CARM have been throwing around for years. Here sample from ...
    https://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=27806

    • Scientists say all our genetic information is coded on DNA. But DNA is an acid! How can you write information in acid? You can write information on a hard drive, but not a liquid!
    • If the earth really revolves around the sun, then why when we look at the sun we can see it plainly revolving around the earth? (And if the earth was moving around the sun, wouldn't we all fly off into space?)
    • People have been wearing clothes for thousands of years. Why haven't our bodies evolved natural clothes that come out of our skin then?

    You're in good company indeed.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ecco View Post
    Sure you have...
    [*]It's not the only one people have come up with. It's the one that has been enhanced and enriched for over 100 years with support from evidence from many different areas of scientific inquiry.[*]The only raging debate is between people who deny evolution on religious grounds and scientists and lay people who put science ahead of their silly superstitious beliefs.[*]It isn't complete. Science will continue to enhance and work out the finer and finer details. [/LIST]





    Your religious beliefs are the root of your denial of evolution. You can try to deny it. Just post whether or not you find to be the Genesis account in the bible to be accurate.



    I had never thought of using the word "troglodyte". But, it does fit.
    [INDENT]trog·lo·dyte



    There has been and continues to be criticism and professional debate within the scientific community ever since Darwin first published. That's why we know more about evolution today than we did 100 years ago. That's how science works. That's why TOE is accepted as the answer to the question of human's existence on earth. There is no scientific research that counters the validity of the overall concept of TOE.
    You totally fail, and demonstrate you do not think about what you read.

    For example, your claims of me stating I do not believe the theory of evolution:

    127 Because a hypothesis is the only one that humanity can come up with does not make it the Truth, or even a good approximation of the Truth. That is related to the false claim that because a theory is the only one, then it must be true.


    128 Its obvious the experiments have not shown evolution is true or there would be no raging debate.
    155 Obviously the evidence is not conclusive and many people do not believe the theory of evolution is at all complete.

    Simple statements of fact, as the many threads in this forum demonstrate. Many people reject or are critical of the theory of evolution. Simple, undeniable fact.

    Neither even hints at my position on evolution, neither comes close to the form of "I believe..."

    And I have certainly not made any claims to a religious basis for my unstated opinion of evolution.


    You continue to nicely demonstrate the closed mindedness and lack of scientific integrity in some of the evolutionist zealots. The mere thought that someone could be critical of your faith in evolution sends you into blindness.
    In the Koran, Surah 8 is titled "al-Anfal" which means "The Spoils of War". Why does the holy book of the "religion of peace" have an entire chapter describing the spoils of war?

    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Battle3 View Post
    You totally fail, and demonstrate you do not think about what you read. ...
    Neither even hints at my position on evolution, neither comes close to the form of "I believe..."
    And I have certainly not made any claims to a religious basis for my unstated opinion of evolution.
    You continue to nicely demonstrate the closed mindedness and lack of scientific integrity in some of the evolutionist zealots. The mere thought that someone could be critical of your faith in evolution sends you into blindness.
    Battle, (and Usfan) I've been in forums for many years. I've been in many discussions regarding evolution.

    As I wrote in an earlier post, the one thing deniers of evolution have in common is their fundamentalist religious beliefs. There are primarily two kinds of arguments used by evolution deniers:
    1. I believe evolution is wrong because the bible says otherwise.
    2. I believe evolution is wrong because it's unproven, has too many unanswered questions, thousands of scientists disagree with it, etc, etc.


    Those in the first group are open and honest and provide an alternative to TOE.
    Those in the second group refuse to admit their religious roots and refuse to provide an alternative to TOE.

    You label me closed minded. Yet you are the one who will not open his mind to the accumulated knowledge provided by tens of thousands of scientists garnered over the course of 100 years. Scientists in many different fields of expertise like geology, physics and biology. Scientists of many different religious beliefs.

    The thought of you, and people like you, being critical of my position on TOE does not send me into blindness. It no longer even saddens me. Your arguments do not change the fact that TOE is firmly established as the only scientific explanation for the existence of humans on this earth.

    It's really quite simple, either nature did it or GodDidIt. I believe nature did it. I am quite sure you believe GodDidIt, even if you will not admit it.

    Perhaps I'm wrong. It's easy to prove me wrong. Just show a third alternative.

  11. Likes tecoyah liked this post
  12. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ecco View Post
    Battle, (and Usfan) I've been in forums for many years. I've been in many discussions regarding evolution.

    As I wrote in an earlier post, the one thing deniers of evolution have in common is their fundamentalist religious beliefs. There are primarily two kinds of arguments used by evolution deniers:
    1. I believe evolution is wrong because the bible says otherwise.
    2. I believe evolution is wrong because it's unproven, has too many unanswered questions, thousands of scientists disagree with it, etc, etc.


    Those in the first group are open and honest and provide an alternative to TOE.
    Those in the second group refuse to admit their religious roots and refuse to provide an alternative to TOE.

    You label me closed minded. Yet you are the one who will not open his mind to the accumulated knowledge provided by tens of thousands of scientists garnered over the course of 100 years. Scientists in many different fields of expertise like geology, physics and biology. Scientists of many different religious beliefs.

    The thought of you, and people like you, being critical of my position on TOE does not send me into blindness. It no longer even saddens me. Your arguments do not change the fact that TOE is firmly established as the only scientific explanation for the existence of humans on this earth.

    It's really quite simple, either nature did it or GodDidIt. I believe nature did it. I am quite sure you believe GodDidIt, even if you will not admit it.

    Perhaps I'm wrong. It's easy to prove me wrong. Just show a third alternative.
    And thus do we complete the circle, now begins the cycle of denial and useless dodging of questions. Do not expect any answers or expect disappointment.

  13. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    Then demonstrate it. You have not demonstrated anything, except your ability to dodge & weave & say nothing... oh, and engage in ad hominem.

    .
    Quote Originally Posted by rahl View Post
    Pointing out you keep handwaiving away evidence supporting evolution. You need to provide for us your peer reviewed paper which has disproven evolution, and biology.

    Let's start with something simpler.........provide a peer reviewed journal which refutes this one......https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...00124-0223.pdf
    ........

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 17 of 43 FirstFirst ... 713141516171819202127 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks