• 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!

Evolution My ToE

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I went to bed, it was after 2AM. You know I do sleep.

Trilobites arrive suddenly in the record, w/ fully developed, compound eye lenses. Hundreds (thousands?) of species of them, all appear abruptly within that 10-15 m.y. timeframe of the radiation. Trilobites are just one group...there are between 20 and 32 different, modern animal phyla represented, including brachiopods and arthropods, that first arrive in the Cambrian.

And although life appears in the fossil record eons before that, it’s unicellular forms; then, in the Ediacaran, there appears multicellular life....but nothing that would indicate ancestral forms to many of those in the Cambrian.

(I’ve posted answers similar to this before....you never read them?)

The information is online, for all to find.

(And I’ll respond when I can. You’re not not at my beck-and-call... neither am I to yours.)
How do you know what I read? You like to claim things that you have no way of knowing are true or not.I

Since you acknowledge the existence of living things prior to the Cambrian and offer only gaps as evidence, it is not clear that the Cambrian fauna did not evolve.

I know you post lots of gap arguments, but thank you for confirming that.

No mention here about apoptosis or sexual selection. Let me guess, like the Cambrian fauna, if science does not have complete answers for everything relating to a theory, then the theory is wrong and creationism takes over by default. It doesn't work that way. Even ig the theory of evolution was found wanting based on some evidence, the creation according to Genesis has already been eliminated and cannot be the default replacement. All Your efforts to discredit science will avail you nothing.
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I went to bed, it was after 2AM. You know I do sleep.

Trilobites arrive suddenly in the record, w/ fully developed, compound eye lenses. Hundreds (thousands?) of species of them, all appear abruptly within that 10-15 m.y. timeframe of the radiation. Trilobites are just one group...there are between 20 and 32 different, modern animal phyla represented, including brachiopods and arthropods, that first arrive in the Cambrian.

And although life appears in the fossil record eons before that, it’s unicellular forms; then, in the Ediacaran, there appears multicellular life....but nothing that would indicate ancestral forms to many of those in the Cambrian.

(I’ve posted answers similar to this before....you never read them?)

The information is online, for all to find.

(And I’ll respond when I can. You’re not not at my beck-and-call... neither am I to yours.)
Why do you say things like at my neck and call? What purpose does that serve you other than to denigrate me falsely? I have made no claims that state or imply I have demanded you are anyone is at my neck and call.

These sorts of comments are made by all the JW posters I have knowingly talked to on this forum. Is this a prescribed practice of debate recommended by your church or am I just lucky? Is it insult people when you don't have valid objection or is it just a reflection of arrogance?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Yeah, right....
Why are you afraid to examine the evidence?

If it truly had “been debunked decades ago,” there wouldn’t be such problems explaining it....

“Why did the Cambrian explosion happen when it did, and why was it such a unique event? While there is no current consensus among scientists, most researchers agree the explosion cannot be ascribed to a single, simple causal mechanism. The potential triggers can be classified in three main categories: environmental, genetic, and ecological. Deciphering the impact of each of these factors remains one of the most important challenges faced by palaeontologists today.
The Cambrian Explosion - Origin of Animals and the Cambrian Explosion - Science - The Burgess Shale

“Debunked”, eh?
Debunked yes. There is no creationist explanation of the Cambrian fauna that refuted the theory of evolution. If there were, you would be presenting that instead of questions to reveal gaps.

It is hilarious. You think you have a smoking gun, but you don't even have a smoked ham. Pigeons don't eat ham anyway.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Yeah, right....
Why are you afraid to examine the evidence?

If it truly had “been debunked decades ago,” there wouldn’t be such problems explaining it....

“Why did the Cambrian explosion happen when it did, and why was it such a unique event? While there is no current consensus among scientists, most researchers agree the explosion cannot be ascribed to a single, simple causal mechanism. The potential triggers can be classified in three main categories: environmental, genetic, and ecological. Deciphering the impact of each of these factors remains one of the most important challenges faced by palaeontologists today.
The Cambrian Explosion - Origin of Animals and the Cambrian Explosion - Science - The Burgess Shale

“Debunked”, eh?
Challenge does not equal refuted. Maybe you should read your sources and not just cut and paste without review.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
And “debunked” means “refuted”, not challenged.

We started out not being so antagonistic. What changed?
If I had to guess, I would say your blatant dishonesty followed by the naked arrogance of being dishonest followed by the denial of the dishonesty.

But perhaps it is just me?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
And “debunked” means “refuted”, not challenged.

We started out not being so antagonistic. What changed?
I know the definitions of debunked and refuted and was reminding you that challenging is not a synonym. You used a quote that notes the challenge for science to understand the Cambrian explosion and explain it in the context of evolution. That challenge does not make it evidence refuting evolution.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Example, please.
Claiming, amidst numerous question asked by me and ignored by you, that I was ignoring your off topic questions. Claiming I ignored the single piece of science you employed in our discussion of the anti-intellectual position of creationism, when I addressed it promptly and was completely ignored. After addressing it sgain, I believe I was ignored again. Certainly there was no acknowledgement of your error regarding my first response. The attempts to divert from the topic of the anti-intellectual position of creationism.

How is that for three examples right off the top of my head? I could add the arrogant, often condescending tone of your posts and acting as my judge.

When you are not trying to be the world's greatest JW, you can be a decent guy to talk to. I assume part of it is a general tendency for members of your religion to believe they know all the answers.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Please, you are the one making false claims.
Either you don't understand what a claim is, or it's just customary for you to spout them... or both.
So let us consider them by number. This should make it easy. We did this at elementary school...or rather, I did. I don't know if you got there, so I can only speak for myself.

Please read the following carefully, and answer each.
1) What specific false claim did I make, of which you are referring to?

Here, you said this...
It is so easy to deny reality. But that only demonstrates that you at best do not know what you are talking about. Either whether we are talking about evidence or logic. By the way, it is a strawman to claim that there is some sort of miraculous change from microevolution to macroevolution. And macroevolution has been observed in real time. So I do not see why you have a problem with it. And by the way, speciation is macroevolution. You do not get to redefine terms for your own benefit. The person that invented those terms defined them.

This opens up several possible topics of discussion. There is almost endless evidence for "macroevolution". Even beyond the species level. How about discussing the concept of evidence first?


2a) Please explain what you mean by the claim it is a strawman to claim that there is some sort of miraculous change from microevolution to macroevolution. And macroevolution has been observed in real time. (in other words, please elaborate, as it is just a bland statement - uselrss in its current form) What scientific paper can you provide, to demonstrate how macroevolution takes place?

2b) What are the almost endless evidence for "macroevolution" (quotation marks noted)?

2c) How many times would you like to discuss the concept of evidence? If you believe it has not been discussed, what is your idea of discussing the concept of evidence?

You made this claim... Ah good. So you finally acknowledge that you are an ape.

3) When and where did I acknowledge that I am an ape?
(You don't have to answer this question, as it is a foolish question, in response to a stupid claim).

You also used a dishonest debating technique. You used a Gish Gallop where you claimed to "listen to the scientists". You just refuted that claim yourself. It now looks like you grabbed a series of quotes from creationist sites, which one had to admit are pretty much all lying sites. One of the quotes that you posted and did not understand was this one:

"Can Modern Evolutionary Theory Explain Macroevolution
Ever since the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s, some biologists have expressed doubt that the Synthetic Theory, based principally on mutation, genetic variation, and natural selection, adequately accounts for macroevolution, or evolution above the species level. Some questions pertain to the history of biological diversity, but the greatest argument has concerned the evolution of major changes in organisms’ form and function. Such changes have been the subject of debate on the nature and phenotypic effect of mutations (especially the role of “macromutations” or saltations), the role of developmental mechanisms and processes, and the importance of internal constraints on adaptive evolution. Bridging the two major macroevolutionary themes, the hypothesis of punctuated equilibria invoked constraints on phenotypic evolution and the role of speciation in both diversification and the evolution of form.
This chapter describes the Evolutionary Synthesis and the challenges to it and addresses the extent to which the modern formulation of the Synthetic Theory (ST) adequately addresses the observations that have prompted skeptical challenge. I conclude that although several proposed extensions and seemingly unorthodox ideas have some merit, the observations they purport to explain can mostly be interpreted within the framework of the Synthetic Theory."

That was from a paper by Futuyma. It was "your paper" you should have know who wrote it. You focused on the last sentence as shown by your bolding. I used Futuyma's name and linked an article on Synthetic Theory, also called "The New Synthesis" also called "Neo-Darwinianism". Darwin's original theory was incomplete. Darwin knew that. Everyone knew that. He knew that he could not explain some aspects of evolution. That did not mean that evolution was in doubt. Synthetic Theory explains what Darwin could not. Your own source says so.

Now why did I say that you used creationist sources? Because I found that same work quoted by various sources such as ICR and others that thought for some odd reason that it was an argument against evolution when it was an argument for one.

As I said, you should pay more attention. Your own sources refute you. One of the dangers of the Gish Gallop is that a person often does that. And by refuting one claim of yours all of them were refuted. Since it takes far too long to refute them individually one claim of a Gish Gallop being refuted refutes them all.

Try bringing up your claims one at a time. You will still lose but it won't be in such an embarrassing manner.

4) What is a Gish Gallop, if you know? Please explain how the post is Gish Gallop.

5) Which of my links in the post, take you to a Creationist website? (Please specify the link)

6) What didn't I understand from the paper, and what proof do you have of that?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
What? You are not even asking reasonable questions. You should be asking how do I know that they are not scientists. Pretty much because all of them have to swear not to use the scientific method in their work.
Strange.
You already said they are not scientists, and why you think so.
You said:
I have seen creationists deny that, but one could hardly call them scientists when their denial is not based upon the scientific method.
Is this what happens with people who speak without thinking.

Where do you get these crazy strawman arguments from? Your understanding appears to be "garbage" as shown by the fact that science articles that you link tend to refute your own claims.
Please, you need to first state the claim you keep referring to (which you can't seem to point out, so it must not exist... except in your mind). Then you would need to state the specific point in the paper, that refutes that claim. Can you do that?

Okay, mea culpa, that was my fault. But this objection of yours was meaningless at any rate and you know that.
Sorry. No I don't. Please explain exactly what you mean by "this objection", and how it is meaningless.

See this is why so many have a problem with you. You do not even appear to know what science is. That is why you falsely claim that this is a philosophical debate. Once again I offer to discuss the basics of science and evidence with you since you do not understand those concepts. That leads you to making false statements as above.
So many have a problem with me because they are angry Atheists like yourself, who know their belief system is just a...
house-on-stilts-meldeine-sipes-canvas-print.jpg

You are not in a position to decide who don't understand anything.
Your imagined expertise on matters is bunkers.... and that is obvious from the fact that you try to behave as though you know everything, when you know very little... especially on the Bible. "Nebu failed". LOL. Hilarious.
You think people don't have problems with you.

Tell me, what else would you like to add to this, or this?

I know. But unlike you I can support my opinion. To date you have run away from even learning the basics.
I would never say, I cannot learn, or no one can teach me, but you.... I think you would run anyone from listening to your claims.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
The above is simply just a smokescreen you've put forth to try and switch the reality that your position is not only anti-science but also bad theology to boot because it doesn't posit other possible alternatives. And for you as a JW to criticize me calling you out on this is so utterly hypocritical because you JW's do this all the time with people in other Christian and non-Christian denominations/religions.

Science and religion must not be contradictory because, if so, then one or both must be bogus. They each do look at many things from different perspectives, but their conclusions must not be at polar opposites. Assuming that God created our universe, He must be reflected in its composition much like an artist is reflected in his/her artwork that they do for themselves. That's why science is so important, namely that our universe must reflect God. If not, then there's a problem.

If you don't want to respond to me, that's OK. But when you criticize someone for exactly the same thing you and your fellow JW's do to so many others, then the reality is that the real problem is really yours.
Of course I am against falsely called science. Does not the same Bible you claim to read, yet oppose, tell you this is what you should do? (1 Timothy 6:20)
It's the responsibility of each person - including myself, to recognize what is falsely called science. No one can be blamed for those who can't recognize it.
One who can't recognize it, or who willfully refuses to, because of their compromise, and traitorous position, to curry favor with the world, has to answer to God, not me.
I feel sorry for such ones, but it's their choice.
When it comes down to the fireworks, it will be unquestionably clear, in whom, or what, we put our trust.
I'm reminded of 2 Kings 18:21.

I don't mind responding to people at all, but when persons get all defensive and annoyed, when someone disagrees with their statements, it's hard to know what to say to that person.
It would seem to me, the person wants me to only say what they like to hear, and I am not about that.
So I would either say very, very little, or nothing at all..../ or, just give it to you straight. if you can take it, well, I don't see someone that's fickle.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Strange.
You already said they are not scientists, and why you think so.

The fact that they do not use the scientific methods is the bottom line. Using the tag 'scientist' is not meaningful in and of itself.

You are not in a position to decide who don't understand anything.
Your imagined expertise on matters is bunkers.... and that is obvious from the fact that you try to behave as though you know everything, when you know very little... especially on the Bible. "Nebu failed". LOL. Hilarious.
You think people don't have problems with you.

Tell me, what else would you like to add to this, or this?


I would never say, I cannot learn, or no one can teach me, but you.... I think you would run anyone from listening to your claims.

I am still waiting for you to document your academic qualifications you have to support the assertions you make based on a religious agenda. It would help to know your qualifications on how you distinguish between false and true science.
 
Last edited:

tas8831

Well-Known Member
I am not a scientist, but I listen to what scientist say, and what they write.

Should have stopped at "I am not a scientist."

I've seen how you "listen" to scientists.

Here is how you "listen"

The Miracle of Water.

The Miracle of Water.

Which is how I know all I need to about people like you.
Perhaps you should do that sometimes, instead of making false statements, as though you know what you are talking about... just because they are claims you wish were true.


Creationists not only have, but very often display for all to see a rather sad inability to see in themselves what they fabricate in others.

All to prop up a failing middle eastern belief system.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
What point is it you wish to make about this?
Well if evolutionists disagree about some aspect of evolution, it must all be wrong, obviously.


Just like how we know Christianity, in all its forms, is a farce because there are YECs and OECs. I'm sure our resident logician would agree.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
The liar said that Mr. Sternberg
Sternberg is a liar.

He claimed that he lost access to his office in the Smithsonian after he got caught facilitating the publication of a creationist essay about the Cambrian into a journal that was about systematics.
He lied because EVERYBODY lost access to their offices at the time due to renovations.

"Well prior to the publication of the Meyer article and my awareness of it, I asked him and another Research Associate to move as part of a larger and unavoidable reorganization of space involving 17 people and 20 offices. He agreed."​

But hey - you have a phony narrative to prop up.

Sternberg complaint dismissed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controver

etc., etc.

I think, whenever Sternberg or Meyer come up, I will just refer to them both as "the liar".
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Either you don't understand what a claim is, or it's just customary for you to spout them... or both.


It is not a good sign when you start off a post with rude and false claims. It does not foster polite debate. Since you continually demonstrate arrogance and ignorance here it would be wise to try to ask questions politely without any false assumptions.

So let us consider them by number. This should make it easy. We did this at elementary school...or rather, I did. I don't know if you got there, so I can only speak for myself.

Again, rudeness when you have demonstrated ignorance is not conducive to a polite discussion.

Please read the following carefully, and answer each.
1) What specific false claim did I make, of which you are referring to?

Here, you said this...
It is so easy to deny reality. But that only demonstrates that you at best do not know what you are talking about. Either whether we are talking about evidence or logic. By the way, it is a strawman to claim that there is some sort of miraculous change from microevolution to macroevolution. And macroevolution has been observed in real time. So I do not see why you have a problem with it. And by the way, speciation is macroevolution. You do not get to redefine terms for your own benefit. The person that invented those terms defined them.


Oh my Gawd! You put in bold but did not see it. It is a false claim to argue that there is a miraculous change from micro to macro. There is no line. There is no border. Scientists have mostly dropped the terms because of that.

This opens up several possible topics of discussion. There is almost endless evidence for "macroevolution". Even beyond the species level. How about discussing the concept of evidence first?

What did you not understand about that? The fact is that you do not understand what evidence is. You continually try to claim that there is no evidence. I truly believe that you are not a liar. That leaves only one possibility, you do not understand the concept of evidence. That is why I offer to discuss it with you. Scientific evidence cannot be honestly denied once one understands the concept. One mistake that nonscientists quite often make is that of conflating evidence with "proof". There is no "proof" in science. The standard is very similar to that of a criminal trial where defendants are not absolutely proven guilty. The standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" . But if you ever accepted that someone was proven guilty in a court case then by the same standards you should accept the theory of evolution.

2a) Please explain what you mean by the claim it is a strawman to claim that there is some sort of miraculous change from microevolution to macroevolution. And macroevolution has been observed in real time. (in other words, please elaborate, as it is just a bland statement - uselrss in its current form) What scientific paper can you provide, to demonstrate how macroevolution takes place?

I already explained there is no hard line between micro and macro. And macroevolution is evolution at the species level and above. That was the definition by the man that coined the terms. We have observed speciation many times so we have by definition observed macroevolution.

2b) What are the almost endless evidence for "macroevolution" (quotation marks noted)?

In dealing with dad I had to develop a rule. Until you understand the concept of evidence you cannot rationally demand evidence. It is frustrating to give someone evidence and see them simply deny it. One thing that happens in a proper debate is that when evidence is given the burden of proof falls upon the person that received the evidence. Since there is no evidence for creationism creationists dishonestly deny the evidence. If you learn what is and what is not evidence then you can demand it. And not my definition of evidence, the definition used by the scientific community.

2c) How many times would you like to discuss the concept of evidence? If you believe it has not been discussed, what is your idea of discussing the concept of evidence?

Just once. And since we are discussing a scientific concept the standard is scientific evidence. You never have discussed this. At best you copied and pasted from articles on general evidence, but I do not think you understood them.


You made this claim... Ah good. So you finally acknowledge that you are an ape.

3) When and where did I acknowledge that I am an ape?
(You don't have to answer this question, as it is a foolish question, in response to a stupid claim).

Obviously in the post that I responded to. I believe that you said something about everyone accepting evolution. Don't complain about stupid claims. You in effect are stating that your post was "stupid".

4) What is a Gish Gallop, if you know? Please explain how the post is Gish Gallop.

Are you seriously trying to claim that you do not know what a Gish Gallop is? At this point I am done. Do your own homework for once.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Strange.
You already said they are not scientists, and why you think so.

Is this what happens with people who speak without thinking.


Please, you need to first state the claim you keep referring to (which you can't seem to point out, so it must not exist... except in your mind). Then you would need to state the specific point in the paper, that refutes that claim. Can you do that?


Sorry. No I don't. Please explain exactly what you mean by "this objection", and how it is meaningless.


So many have a problem with me because they are angry Atheists like yourself, who know their belief system is just a...
house-on-stilts-meldeine-sipes-canvas-print.jpg

You are not in a position to decide who don't understand anything.
Your imagined expertise on matters is bunkers.... and that is obvious from the fact that you try to behave as though you know everything, when you know very little... especially on the Bible. "Nebu failed". LOL. Hilarious.
You think people don't have problems with you.

Tell me, what else would you like to add to this, or this?


I would never say, I cannot learn, or no one can teach me, but you.... I think you would run anyone from listening to your claims.
If you want to discuss this apologize and try again. I get tired of rudeness and arrogance.
 
Top