cladking
Well-Known Member
So why don't you tell us why you believe this animal slowly turned into land animals and why you believe consciousness, genes, and behavior took a back seat to fitness?
Where is evidence OR logic to support your beliefs?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Believabliltiy of Evolution
- Thread starter rrobs
- Start date
So why don't you tell us why you believe this animal slowly turned into land animals and why you believe consciousness, genes, and behavior took a back seat to fitness?
Where is evidence OR logic to support your beliefs?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What? You need to work on your questions. That animal did not slow turn into a land animal. Individuals do not evolve.
Tiktaalik is an example of an prediction. You asked for one and you got one. Poorly asked questions will not change that fact.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I'm almost afraid to ask but how is it a prediction?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You really need to have an attitude adjustment. Do not ask rude questions if you want an answer.
As I said it is a transitional species. There is no doubt about that. And using the theory of evolution and geology it was predicted that they could find such a species there.
The problem is that you are shooting in the dark. This explanation will do you no good because you do not even understand the basics of evolution. You have demonstrated that you do not even understand the scientific method. That is why I offered to work from the ground up. First one must learn what science is and how it is done. One must learn what is and what is not evidence. And then it helps a lot if one understands the terms of the science being discussed. You have failed at all of these. But there is no reason that you could not learn.
cladking
Well-Known Member
The lesson on etiquette is much appreciated.
But you didn't answer the questions.
"So why don't you tell us why you believe this animal slowly turned into land animals and why you believe consciousness, genes, and behavior took a back seat to fitness?"
The existence of evidence can never prove your interpretation of that evidence. Even by your own silly chart "evidence" is a starting point, not an ending point.
But you didn't answer the questions.
"So why don't you tell us why you believe this animal slowly turned into land animals and why you believe consciousness, genes, and behavior took a back seat to fitness?"
The existence of evidence can never prove your interpretation of that evidence. Even by your own silly chart "evidence" is a starting point, not an ending point.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It isn't evolution. Genetics and similarities do not portray evolution. Of the Darwinian kind. There is nothing to link humans with gorillas or fish in real time, real life, the links are genetically lost somehow, oddly enough. Maybe you think otherwise. I have learned the real gaps cannot be explained anyway in actuality (not conjecture). But now you got me wondering -- let's say a gorilla killed a man but the discoverers of the man's body did not know that. Ya think genetics (forensic science) might solve that happenstance? Could be -- why don't you tell me.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Your first claim was rude and poorly worded. at that point you failed.. It was not only poorly worded, you demonstrated that you do not understand the terminology being used.
Can you be polite? The chart was not "silly" I have not made fun of your ignorance. I have only pointed it out. Try again. See if you can answer questions politely and properly. Is that too much to ask?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is evidence for evolution. That cannot be denied. At least it cannot be honestly denied by someone that understand the topic.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Some evolutionists I have read about claim it could be the first something that turned into life on earth came from stardust. Landing on the earth. Interesting I think that the Bible says man came from dust and will go back to dust when he dies.
gnostic
The Lost One
The part I’ve highlighted, is exactly that, conspiracy theory, which is based on
(A) either on your ignorance of what Peer Review is and how it work,
(B) or you are making things up.
(B) or you are making things up.
There are no voting in Peer Review.
One or more independent scientists will examine and analyze the models, evidence and data, to ensure that it meet the requirements of Scientific Method. They will also independently check for errors, inconsistencies/discrepancies, and more importantly, fraudulent acts (such as doctoring data).
Take for instance, Intelligent Design advocate, Michael Behe, who tried to submit Irreducible Complexity (IC) paper. He submitted no evidence, hence he has no verifiable data.
What he have, are some illustrations and some computerized charts that are not based on any data from evidence he has gathered. So his charts are made of false information.
No reviewers will accept baseless charts. His work on IC has never been peer-reviewed.
So what does Behe do?
He write a book explaining and justifying his Irreducible Complexity, called Darwin’s Black Box (1996) and sent it to a publisher (Free Press) that don’t do peer-review.
Behe has even admitted at the Kitzmiller vs Dover case (2005) that there are no original data and no original research for Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design and Behe’s own Irreducible Complexity are pseudoscience concepts, based on creationism, where they change god’s name to Designer.
Peer Review are used to weed out any pseudoscience concepts and concepts that have no verifiable evidence and data.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You may have understood them. And "evolutionist" is an improper term. When the correct term is "scientist".
cladking
Well-Known Member
So you have no answers and don't need them because you say I'm stupid, rude, and ignorant.
Who needs answers when the alternative is chaos or something you can't believe.
Just keep repeating "evolution is caused by survival of the fittest and consciousness is irrelevant to all life except Peers.".
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
As far as irreducible complexity, nothing, absolutely nothing is available to demonstrate a reducible basic substance. That, so far, is unavailable. Almost, but not quite like the "unknown common ancestor."
And I am not agreeing with all of Michael Behe's ideas, but that one is irreducible. In that complex arrangement.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
That's what they do when you don't agree with them...Yes, I've read about the prejudice with so-called "peer review."
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I never said that you were stupid. You have been rude. And you have demonstrated that you do not know what you are talking about even in your questions. The rest of your post is pretty much nonsense.
Evolution is supported by endless scientific evidence. There is no reliable evidence for any other concept. In fact if you deny evolution by the same "logic" you should deny gravity since there is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
A claim made by science deniers but never substantiated.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
LOL! Just keep telling yourself that. The theory has been tested and confirmed endlessly. This is the sort of claim that those that do not understand evidence tell themselves to justify a belief in fairy tales.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There simply are, and I mean irreducibly, absolutely no real (and I mean real) verification of the Darwinian style explanation of how humans came about. None -- whatsoever. None. Zilch. None. Nada. None. Except imagination and conjecture. Also nichts.[/QUOTE]
Michaele Behe? The poor fool that was refuted by a mouse trap?
Michael Behe chose some recently discovered problems in biology and claimed that they were "irreducibly complex". The only problem is that half of them were shown not to be irreducibly complex before his work was published and the rest shortly later. Behe was great for comic relief in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case. He ended up looking like a fool on the stand.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Nobody knows what causes gravity. But you not only know what causes "evolution" but you know that behavior and consciousness are irrelevant to it. You know consciousness is irrelevant even though you don't know the nature of consciousness nor its cause!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Homo omisciencis is a remarkable creature. You not only know what's real (evolution) but you know what's not real (everything else) and you know because Darwin assumed populations remained steady and because Peers are the 7th step of the scientific method. You even know I'm rude because you keep insulting me, belittling me, and insulting my intelligence. You know I won't speak on the subject because the subject is the infallibility of Peers who know change in species must be caused by survival of the fittest and I keep taking about everything else.
None of this seems in the least bit odd to you.
cladking
Well-Known Member
No. People deny the existence of God. Almost nobody denies the existence of science or the importance of experiment. What is being denied is the belief life mustta sprung from chemicals and evolved into the biosphere by the process of "evolution". What is being denied is your denial of facts and logic.