Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based

[Dan From Smithville]

I usually find myself jumping in and giving information, showing some basics, giving examples. Then, after a few cycles, I realize (duh!) that the other side is neither listening nor is able to understand what I said. At that point, I tend to get bored unless someone else asks an interesting question. Answering the same one over and over again, especially with someone unwilling to learn, loses my interest after a while.

On the other hand, I often find these users that clearly don't understand much can prompt those who do to give some really wonderful arguments, examples, or insights. And *that* can make these threads well worth it.

I have probably learned more physics following your posts than I have in the last 20 years, so it is useful, but not necessarily to the individuals you direct it to. I will be happy to have you continue, even if your targets are not listening. I am.

When I was 14, I briefly had aspirations of becoming a physicist, but biology won out and probably for the better in my case.

 

[Polymath257]

I have probably learned more physics following your posts than I have in the last 20 years, so it is useful, but not necessarily to the individuals you direct it to. I will be happy to have you continue, even if your targets are not listening. I am.

When I was 14, I briefly had aspirations of becoming a physicist, but biology won out and probably for the better in my case.

And I have learned a substantial amount of biology from your posts. Keep them going!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The so called "fraud" is blown out of proportion. Do you even understand what the supposed fraud was an why he did it? And I have heard this claim but have not seen it supported by valid sources that such illustrations are used in modern textbooks.

You are really grasping at straws now. By your standards the various Christian frauds, and they are almost endless, disprove Christianity. Are you sure that you want to pursue this "logic"?

Are we supposed to respond directly to each other or just post open with no clear target for our responses?

Should I start with "Who am a talking to?" and go from there. What is the protocol of this radical new style of debating with people by not addressing them or listening to them?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I did not know there was a Bigfoot in Australia. Must help on walkabouts.

I am not familiar with Bill Smith, but if he is a convert, that is proof positive that whatever he represents is real and what he no longer represents is not real.

I hope the person I am responding to, realizes I am talking to them. I am just now learning how to work this radical new style of debate and discussion.

Please respond to me in kind so I have no idea if you are talking to me or not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Who was bringing up Christian fraud? I could not tell.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How are modern textbooks using Haekel's drawings. Are they saying that this is what embryos look like or are they using them as examples of what Haekel did? That is an important distinction.

As always, please do not respond directly to me and show me any courtesy or respect. Make these responses as difficult and confusing as possible. It is the New Creationist Standard. We must follow the rules.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How long are we going to labor over these identified mistakes and frauds that are long in the past and have no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution? Some of them were not committed by scientists. Piltdown man for instance was committed by an amateur. Nebraska man was a misclassification. All of them were identified and corrected by scientists and not by any creationist.

Please show the least courtesy and direct your responses to the ether.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is it me or does anyone else see the irony of quoting noted evolutionary biologists as sources of the fraud and mistakes made by evolutionary biologists that cannot be trusted because they support a science that makes Bible deifiers all squidgy?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Which is a bigger fraud? Haeckel's drawings or Behe's irreducible complexity? My money is on irreducible complexity which could not even stand up in a court of law, let alone a science lab.

Please save your responses for the ether.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Guess who I am responding to.

I too am content with how evolution is being taught.

There theory of evolution is widely accepted and understood and has no viable scientific alternatives that are even close. The debate within science is over details, like mode and distinctions between micro- and macro-evolution.

The debate outside of science is not really a debate so much as a denial by creationists that are obligated to fear and ignorance.

 

[ecco]

Heart transplants. I don't buy it. It goes against common sense. Taking an organ from a person and putting one from a dead person in its place.

Note to self. Must start a list of scientists that do not believe heart transplants are real.

Organ Transplants?!? First, we need to discuss fundamentals.

 

[ecco]

If a person only listens to Fake News they'll never get the truth.

So, you are a Trump supporter - that's not surprising.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Dang near made a mistake and almost responded directly to the person I am responding to.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that organ transplants are real. How the heck are you going to do them if the Earth is not flat like the Bible implies it is?

If the Earth was round, people would be all curved when they were being operated on and that just will not do. You cannot have a successful operation on a curved patient.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I thought it was obvious he was a Trump supporter from the fact that he does not have a clue about what he is talking about. Isn't that a prerequisite for that group?

Now that I think about it, maybe it is Trump in disguise. No. Trump would never disguise his ignorance, since, like our science denier, he believes he is the only one that knows anything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would love to see videos of Squatch.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Irreducible complexity is flawed logic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia

 

[ecco]

Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation - Conservapedia

Conservapedia bills itself as "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia"

Would I buy a used car from a company that bills itself as "The Trustworthy Used Car Guys"? No.

Likewise, anything written about in something that calls itself "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is instantly red-flagged as "probably untrue".

 

[Patriottechsan]

If you won't even admit to the fraud when Stephen Gould admit it is fraud then I can't help you. Plus when the science community continues to commit that fraud and never correct it for over 100 yrs and you still find it credible is beyond me. They sure wouldn't admit to the others. Did you even read his comments? I will post since you won't even click on the link

A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote Darwinism was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel. Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:

“ "Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"[1]

Now if you can't acknowledge that as fraud when even Gould does then it proves you can't be helped. It proves there is an agenda not honest science driving this bus. It also shows why they won't admit many other frauds that others have found. I find that incredibly sad. You have a highly noted and esteemed evolutionist admitting it is fraud and embarrassed by it but you refuse to admit it. Wow just Wow!

Go ahead and stay in your cocoon as Gould calls it of misinformation.

 

[ecco]

A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote Darwinism was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel.

A notable case of a Christian using fraudulent material to promote Christianity was the work of American Christian David Koresh.

Tell us again what point you are trying to make.