Evolution My ToE

[Alone]

The problem I'm seeing with all of this is that when it really boils down to it nobody has any evidence of anything you're saying go look at Google for such and such and so and so and another person is saying go look at the Bible for such and such and so and so and yet nobody can really prove anyting! It's all relative it's all hearsay nobody was alive back then so we don't really know, it's all something that's been handed down generation after generation after generation story after story after story, but what everyone believes is what they believe and obviously no one is going to change anyone's mind! No matter what we say.

 

[nPeace]

Fine, the monkey. And no, your non-sequitur was an example that you are not able to debate properly.

Try to focus. See if you can concentrate on the topic at hand. Demonstrating how you do not understand the theory of evolution is not a refutation of it.

"Demonstrating how you do not understand the theory of evolution is not a refutation of it." Pardon me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

when I asked you to prove that I was a monkey you gave me five options to say which one I am not, I chose the first one, I am the one that said I was dumber than a monkey there for that proves I am not a monkey LOL are you not reading your previous post before you reply?
Personally I think that saying I am a monkey is more ridiculous then the possibility of a flood or an ice age or dinosaurs. Not only that tell me why apes do not turn into humans now? Or whatever scientific term you would like to use for that animal that has fur and cannot talk? I wonder if an ape would appreciate a human telling him that he will transformation into a human?

No, those traits demonstrated that you are a great ape. Scientists will not use the term "monkey" because it is not a scientific one. It is poorly defined. And no, you did not prove that you are not a monkey either. To understand your error you need to understand cladistics and you are getting way ahead of yourself in doing so. Cladistics is a classification system that is based upon the fact of evolution.

And please, an argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. Tell me, why did you not honestly deal with that post as written? Though there is no commandment to be honest, I would hope that you would try to be. One cannot learn if one refuses to honestly approach the subject matter. The fact that you are a great ape, or even a "monkey" if you prefer, does not refute the Jesus story so as a Christian it should not bother you that much.

 

[Jose Fly]

The problem I'm seeing with all of this is that when it really boils down to it nobody has any evidence of anything you're saying go look at Google for such and such and so and so and another person is saying go look at the Bible for such and such and so and so and yet nobody can really prove anyting! It's all relative it's all hearsay nobody was alive back then so we don't really know, it's all something that's been handed down generation after generation after generation story after story after story, but what everyone believes is what they believe and obviously no one is going to change anyone's mind! No matter what we say.

You raise two good points. First, you note the difference between science-advocates and creationists, in that the former relies on scientific data and analysis to reach their conclusions, whereas the latter relies on the Bible for their conclusions. Those are two very different ways of approaching the issue of the history of life on earth.

Second, you are correct in that it is highly unlikely that anyone will change their mind, which raises the question.....what then is the point of all this? So I ask you....why did you start posting in this sub-forum?

 

[Alone]

No, those traits demonstrated that you are a great ape. Scientists will not use the term "monkey" because it is not a scientific one. It is poorly defined. And no, you did not prove that you are not a monkey either. To understand your error you need to understand cladistics and you are getting way ahead of yourself in doing so. Cladistics is a classification system that is based upon the fact of evolution.

And please, an argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. Tell me, why did you not honestly deal with that post as written? Though there is no commandment to be honest, I would hope that you would try to be. One cannot learn if one refuses to honestly approach the subject matter. The fact that you are a great ape, or even a "monkey" if you prefer, does not refute the Jesus story so as a Christian it should not bother you that much.

And what exactly am I not being honest about?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not talking about physical traits.

Then what?

Solomon was wise and he never ignored animal traits. He noted for example the hard working ants. He would not have been so foolish as to look at ant legs or eyes, and try to conceive that as some similarity based on relatives!!!!

Why would you expect Solomon to understand anything about biology or alike?
As a matter of fact, why would you even mention Solomon in a discussion about biology?
Might as well mention Captain Kirk of Harry Potter.

If Noah lived in a time when a different nature existed, then current genetics cannot be traced back that far.

And if magical unicorns existed and crapped out vegan burgers, it would solve world hunger.

Since genetics today cannot be traced backward very far,

If love how you started with an "if" and then 2 sentence later changed it into a statement of fact, without ever providing any evidence for your "if", and obviously with no plans of doing that later on.

Honesty is not defined by or limited to handicapping ourselves intellectually and dealing with a small fraction of the facts!

Honesty in this case is about not pretending to know what you don't know.
And since you don't know what you don't know, you should never pretend to know with absolute certainty.

Because among the things you don't know, their might potentially hide one or more datapoints that turn out to show your idea incorrect or incomplete.

Of course germs cause disease. But science can't tell us if evil spirits could sometimes influence how man comes across germs!

Neither can science tell us if undetectable pink gravitons are regulating the higgs boson to give particles mass.

The question rather is: why would you even propose such a thing?

It can't tell us how God could protect us from them, or heal us if we were diseased!

Neither can you.
This is a problem for your case.

False. Limited evolution, (the evolving we actually have observed) is fine! It is when you use your belief set to try to attribute that and that alone as the reason we are all here that you must be corrected.

I've just explained to you that "that alone" is not part of any scientific theory. Sheesh you're dense.
The option for additional factors is left wide open. Any contenders must by supported by objective evidence.

The parts of science that are included as science that are really just belief based nonsense with no evidence, observation, testing or proof are not real science.

I have a 2-way bet.

Create 2 lists. On one, you list all the science you think is "real science". On the other, you list all the science you think is "not real science".

The first bet, is that on the list of "real science", you will have listed all scientific topics that are compatible with your religious beliefs, while on the "not real science", you will have listed all topics that are incompatible with your religious beliefs.

The second bet, is that if you would then be asked to go over all items on the lists and explain for each one why you think it's "real" or "not real", while only referring to the science and the evidence (and thus not your religious beliefs), you will struggle immensly, contradict yourself and eventually choke up unable to continue. Or you'll ramble on and on, getting everything wrong and backwards. Because you'ld be pretty ignorant about the actual content and evidence of most of those scientific topics.


The conclusion will be that the leading, and exclusive, factor by which you "evaluate" sciences as "real" or "not real", has nothing at all to do with the sciences. It's all about what you believe religiously.


And with that, I bid you adieu.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Demonstrating how you do not understand the theory of evolution is not a refutation of it." Pardon me.

That is what you tried to do. You demonstrated a lack of understanding. You found an article that showed there were a few holdouts about bird evolution. So what? All that demonstrates is that you do not understand what is being debated or why. You could not even address the fact that recent fossils finds make it the theropod bird evolution hypothesis ever more certain. There is not even unification in opposition to that hypothesis, you do realize that most of those that oppose that still believe that birds are dinosaurs, don't you?

Just to help:

The origin of birds

Also you might want to read this article. Some of your post are all but unreadable due to the excessive "green ink":

Green ink - RationalWiki

 

[Subduction Zone]

And what exactly am I not being honest about?

Resisting learning is not honest when one claimed to want to learn. Honest questions are fine, but you are not going to refute something that you do not understand with "gotcha" questions.

Let's go over the concept of evidence again. Do you realize that the first step in having evidence is having a testable idea?

 

[Alone]

You raise two good points. First, you note the difference between science-advocates and creationists, in that the former relies on scientific data and analysis to reach their conclusions, whereas the latter relies on the Bible for their conclusions. Those are two very different ways of approaching the issue of the history of life on earth.

Second, you are correct in that it is highly unlikely that anyone will change their mind, which raises the question.....what then is the point of all this? So I ask you....why did you start posting in this sub-forum?

I'm beginning to wonder myself I just thought it was kind of interesting, and then I started seeing things like the noah account is absurd and evolution is absolute, and I really don't know what I believe but at the same time any of it could be believed by any person at any particular moment, however there really is no evidence to prove anything, so that's a good question maybe I should have never given an opinion in the first place. Thank you for making me aware of that!

 

[nPeace]

The problem I'm seeing with all of this is that when it really boils down to it nobody has any evidence of anything you're saying go look at Google for such and such and so and so and another person is saying go look at the Bible for such and such and so and so and yet nobody can really prove anyting! It's all relative it's all hearsay nobody was alive back then so we don't really know, it's all something that's been handed down generation after generation after generation story after story after story, but what everyone believes is what they believe and obviously no one is going to change anyone's mind! No matter what we say.

Yes. Different beliefs.
However, one has to use commonsense and reason, to come to a logical conclusion, on which makes more sense.
I am of the opinion that we can determine which is truth, but you are right... I cannot prove it.
Science doesn't prove anything either, but Atheist do like the evolution theories, and it seems the reason is obvious to me... because the evidence for a creator seems clear... but that's one view.

 

[Alone]

Resisting learning is not honest when one claimed to want to learn. Honest questions are fine, but you are not going to refute something that you do not understand with "gotcha" questions.

Let's go over the concept of evidence again. Do you realize that the first step in having evidence is having a testable idea?

Okay you're right I'm a monkey sorry if I said anything that offended you please forgive me

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm beginning to wonder myself I just thought it was kind of interesting, and then I started seeing things like the noah account is absurd and evolution is absolute, and I really don't know what I believe but at the same time any of it could be believed by any person at any particular moment, however there really is no evidence to prove anything, so that's a good question maybe I should have never given an opinion in the first place. Thank you for making me aware of that!

To understand fully how that is known you will need to learn quite a bit of the sciences. If you get the basics of science down you can eventually learn for yourself.

 

[Alone]

Can I have a banana please?

 

[nPeace]

That is what you tried to do. You demonstrated a lack of understanding. You found an article that showed there were a few holdouts about bird evolution. So what? All that demonstrates is that you do not understand what is being debated or why. You could not even address the fact that recent fossils finds make it the theropod bird evolution hypothesis ever more certain. There is not even unification in opposition to that hypothesis, you do realize that most of those that oppose that still believe that birds are dinosaurs, don't you?

Just to help:

The origin of birds

Also you might want to read this article. Some of your post are all but unreadable due to the excessive "green ink":

Green ink - RationalWiki

No. The paper did not lie. It is strongly opposed. That's what it said. You did read it, did you? Or didn't you?
Here it is...
Although the majority of biologists have come to accept that birds are dinosaurs, there is lingering and, in some quarters, strident opposition to this view.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm beginning to wonder myself I just thought it was kind of interesting

I certainly agree with you there...this is a very interesting topic, for multiple reasons.

and then I started seeing things like the noah account is absurd

The notion that the entire earth was flooded ~4,000 years ago and all life on earth destroyed except what road aboard a wooden boat is not at all in line with the data (from multiple fields of science) and is directly contradicted by much of that same data. Of course for some folks, whether or not the Noah account is consistent with science doesn't matter. It's a religious belief, so what science says about it is irrelevant.

and evolution is absolute

That populations evolve, and that new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species arise via evolution are all things we see happen (IOW, observed facts).

and I really don't know what I believe but at the same time any of it could be believed by any person at any particular moment, however there really is no evidence to prove anything, so that's a good question maybe I should have never given an opinion in the first place. Thank you for making me aware of that!

I don't want to give you the impression that you shouldn't give your opinion. After all, that's pretty much what this place is....people giving opinions and debating them. I'd just suggest that if you're truly interested in reaching a solid conclusion on this subject, you first take the time to study it on your own.

 

[Jose Fly]

Although the majority of biologists have come to accept that birds are dinosaurs, there is lingering and, in some quarters, strident opposition to this view.

Therefore.............?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem I'm seeing with all of this is that when it really boils down to it nobody has any evidence of anything you're saying go look at Google for such and such and so and so and another person is saying go look at the Bible for such and such and so and so and yet nobody can really prove anyting! It's all relative it's all hearsay nobody was alive back then so we don't really know, it's all something that's been handed down generation after generation after generation story after story after story, but what everyone believes is what they believe and obviously no one is going to change anyone's mind! No matter what we say.

ow boy

Have you ever even heared about "science"?
Do you think science is just some random person's mere opinion?

Did you wake up on earth just yesterday or something?

 

[Alone]

I certainly agree with you there...this is a very interesting topic, for multiple reasons.


The notion that the entire earth was flooded ~4,000 years ago and all life on earth destroyed except what road aboard a wooden boat is not at all in line with the data (from multiple fields of science) and is directly contradicted by much of that same data. Of course for some folks, whether or not the Noah account is consistent with science doesn't matter. It's a religious belief, so what science says about it is irrelevant.


That populations evolve, and that new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species arise via evolution are all things we see happen (IOW, observed facts).


I don't want to give you the impression that you shouldn't give your opinion. After all, that's pretty much what this place is....people giving opinions and debating them. I'd just suggest that if you're truly interested in reaching a solid conclusion on this subject, you first take the time to study it on your own.

That's good advice I never claimed to be very smart or anything I just again, thought it was interesting and jumped into something that I shouldn't have so to everyone on this post I'm sorry and I'm not going to say anything else.

 

[Jose Fly]

That's good advice

Thanks!

I never claimed to be very smart or anything I just again, thought it was interesting and jumped into something that I shouldn't have so to everyone on this post I'm sorry and I'm not going to say anything else.

You don't have to be a genius or anything, it just helps to have a good understanding of a subject before trying to debate it. Good luck!

 

[nPeace]

Okay you're right I'm a monkey sorry if I said anything that offended you please forgive me

If I may point out, scientists are not the only ones looking at the "data".
All of us are.
@Alone I forgot to add, we interpret that data differently and arrive at different conclusions.
There is a detective who was once an Atheist for 35 years. (I suppose he may have included his birth) because his father is Atheist.
He used his detective experience, to examine the facts. We can all do the same. I like his approach.
These videos are long, but they are packed, and allows one to follow his arguments. They are quite informative.