Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by john smith, Nov 23, 2005.
What causes things to evolve?
The suspension of belief.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Your so-called evidence is childish nonsense, namely "similarity" or to give it some illusive cred, "homology". It does not state why macroevol is a scientific fact.
Get yer snake oil....
Yes, it is the same old bullshite jargon, nothing new.
Keep telling yourself that, but the reality is it makes no difference to the fact that you have no idea why you accept macroevol as a scientific fact, and continue to show it.
No thanks, snake oil business is a blast.
You poor little gross-materialist, don't you realise not everybody argues for the sake of their own credibility?
With my irreducibly-complex flagellum don't forget.
Since when was asking question ignorant?
Oh...I know....since the questions reveal your idiotic belief system hoplessly masqureaded as fact with a thick vale of heavily financed bullshite jargon.
Is this the kind of observation you used when you decided to believe macroevol is a scientific fact.
No, you fool..I shout;
King is in the altogether,
the altogether, the altogether,
he's altogether as naked as the day that he was born,
Then I go LA LA LA!!!
Here's a cure: go away and never return.
how are you though there are huge people how disagree with this opinion that evolution is not the case of human development.
it is said i quran that human are or living beging are created out form clay but there are huge number of muslims that deny evolution and simple says that it is against our religion i cannot understand those people. one should ask them that god would have made them with his hand. as it is said in quran and also in bible that god only thinks and that thing is done.
Isn't that cute...life outside the cesspool.
Do you agree that macroevolution is responsible for the diversity of life we see today?
Cute? Why thank you... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I realised that it's more fun to pick on morons [hint hint] than to stay in the cesspool, enjoyable as that is.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Clearly you do Jan.
I remember stating to you, some half dozen times, that I merely follow the evidence. I would, and have, provided links for you to be able to see what the evidence is, but you just refer to it as "bullshite jargon", with no valid reason to do so. It would seem the main problem is that you seemingly expect a mouse to just one day give birth to a cow. If you understood the "jargon", you'd undoubtedly think differently.
While I have no issue with you deciding to believe whatever you want to, please do not think you can answer for me too.
No disrespect, but now you're just being silly. Give me some testable evidence to show that there is a god/s of any kind and I shall give it further attention. Until such time it is of no relevance to life and reality.
I rather thought you would ignore my question about how you thought life and species came to be. Why would you ignore that question? Is it because if you answer it, you would show that your version would be supported by even less evidence of that of evolution?
You say that 'similarity' is a 'childish' way to support macro evolution. But there is nothing alive today if I'm not mistaken that is not similar to any other species that was alive today or in the past. If there was a creature alive today that was completely unlike any other species alive today or in the past, then obviously questions would be asked.
Moreover, Humans never appeared BEFORE Hominid's. Now you and me obviously don't know intricate details of evolution (well you clearly don't anyway), but even the common sense first look shows evolution is a relativly simple scientific concept. For you and me, this lack of knowledge should still easily understand that the family tree of life on Earth can be explained by evolution. People much smarter than both of us, have a much deeper understanding, and it is not surprising to me that there is very little controversy on evolution by scientisits of all different fields such as Biology, Chemistry, Genetics, Geology, Physics, Palentology, Antropology etc etc.
I am more inclined to believe the educated millions of people who belong to the above branches of science, than yourself who has not even bothered to read up on this particular subject.
Until we find evidence which contradicts marco evolution, macro evolution will always be scientific fact. There is no better explanation that can be supported with evidence. If there is, please show it...
Evolution does NOT explain the origin of life or the universe etc.
God is still open for belief whether you understand and accept that evolution is a scientific fact or not.
And don't be fooled into thinking that people believe in evolution as an alternative to God.
99% of all religious people I know do not dispute evolution.
But they have built evolution into their religion and discounted the creationist alternative.
Most people accept evolution because of the evidence.
Most atheists do not in God because of the absolute lack of evidence.
Unless you are a Creationist, the two can be considered completely separately.
No it isn't. And merely labelling it as that will not make it so. When you demonstrate why it is 'childish nonsense', you might have a case. But until then, no dice, Snake woman.
Poor Jan. You still fail to grasp that scientists have never claimed that similarity by itself is evidence of evolution. Really, if you are going to argue against a fact and theory, you should understand a little about it.
Yes, I'm receiving quite a bit of snake oil from you in this thread.
WOW! Do you consider that a form of rebuttal, Jan? A measly sentence where you merely label my post and linked article 'jargon'? I guess you do that with anything which is a little over your intelligence level (pretty much everything)... just pass it off as goobledegook. Special theory of relativity? Why, I can't understand that, so it's jargon!
What's rather humourous here is that I actually gave a lovely summary for laymen in the thread I posted, so NO scientific knowledge is required to understand the significance of the evidence I posted. In otherwords, you shouldn't have too much difficulty understanding the basics.
Here's an idea, Jan. Why don't you PROVE that you've read it? You can do so by merely stating the evidence I put forward in my thread, including why I feel that it is strong evidence for evolution. This will tell me that you are at least taking the effort to understand the opponent's position. Then you can explain why you don't think that it is valid evidence for evolution.
There is nothing wrong with asking a question when you are genuinely interested in the answer. However, you do nothing of the sort. Instead, you do the following.
1. Ask a question, where you make it clear that you already think that you 'know' the answer.
2. When someone politely responds, you adopt a glazed look, and ignore their wonderful response. And articles posted are labelled as 'jargon', 'bullshit', or 'not credible', without a valid explaination of why you think that they are so. In fact, you have never even given an indication that you have READ the articles many people here have posted.
3. You then continue to parrot your question, pretending that it hasn't been addressed.
4. Eventually, your 'opponent' gives up and walks away.
5. A month later, you rear your head in another thread, and ask the same question, as if it has never been addressed.
People CONTINUALLY correct your misconceptions, factual inaccuracies, and outright bullshit. But you just ignore them, and continue to parrot your trash ad nauseum.
I not only find this frustrating, I also find it highly dishonest.
The inability to absorb new information, even when it has been drilled into you time and time again, is the very definition of willful ignorance.
Thank you for demonstrating the intention behind your 'questions'. There is no honest enquiry involved... you are merely looking for a chance to protelyze and bitch.
I regard it as childish because of the reasoning of "similarity" to come to your conclusion, and nonsense because it does not make it a scientific fact but you still think it does.
I'm asking a question, namely, why is macroevol a scientific fact, not arguing (as yet). For the argument to commence, you must first answer my question.
I fail to see how, when I am ASKING you a question. If anyone is peddling, it is you.
No, it is a reaction to your question.
Are you going to persist with ad-hominem attacks, or are you going to attempt to answer my question...here...on this thread.
Its quite simple, if you have an answer, answer, if you don't then shut the fuck up.
You have no answer?
Why don't you just answer my question, here and now?
Instead of asking pointless questions.
What has happened to Einstuck, by the way?
I asked you the question in this thread, why can't you answer it in this thread.
Until you can answer, there is no concept of opponent.
This is nonsense. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It is not up to you to decide whether or not I am genuine, without first answering the first question. This is clearly delay and/or avoid tactics.
What are you afraid of?
Why did you feel the need to answer the question in an entirely separate thread?
A wonderful response? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You are digging a massive hole for yourself. I have asked a simple straight-foreward, no-smoke, no-mirrors question. Any person with a reasonable amount of human intelligence will see that you are clearly avoiding answering it, and must come to the conclusion that you don't have an adequate answer.
Call me all the names under the sun, it doesn't change that clear and emerging fact. Redeem yourself and answer the question here and now.
The so-called opponent gives up and walk away because he has nothing to offer. And remember, I'm interested in why YOU believe it is a scientific fact, not what Joe Bloggs thinks.
If microevol is a scientific fact, then my tactic (if there is one) will be exposed for the world to see, but you need to explain the scientific evidence which makes it a scientific fact, otherwise your tactic (delay/avoid) will be exposed.
Here you go again. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Just answer the question.
I take it you're not going to answer then?
Why don't you just answer me and let's move on from this?
For the gazillionth time:
Also worth taking note of:
Seriously, you ask for the evidence and then reject the evidence when we give it to you. There is no point writing all that evidence up from scratch just for you to then refer to it as "bullshite jargon", without being decent enough to explain what specific grievances you have with the evidence.
Again, the answers are within the two urls pasted above by Snakelord.
You claim to have read them but I don't recall you saying specifically what you disagree with, and what better evidence you have that contradicts it.
And as I am telling you for the second time on this page of this thread, no scientist has ever fucking claimed that similarity by itself is evidence of evolution, any more than a forensic investigator claims that a hole in the wall is evidence that a bullet passed through it. Once again, who are you to challenge evolution when you don't have a fucking clue as to what it entails?
It's already been answered at least a dozen times. For the argument to commence, you need to drop your rhetoric and stalling tactics, and actually read the MANY replies given to you in this thread.
No, they aren't ad-homimen attacks. They are personal insults, which are well deserved. Not only are you ignorant of basic science, you also don't have a clue about logic fallacies. But don't feel bad, I won't hold it against you. You're pretty much living up to the standards I have set for you.
What's ironic here is that you have the gall to bitch about my supposed ad-homs. How many times have you responded to honest attempts to educate you with sarcasm, condescension, and a holier-than-thou attitude?
Once again, I've answered your question. My question regarding whether you have read another thread I posted is not pointless, because it is strong evidence for why evolution + common descent are fact. Ergo, it is exactly what you are demanding. Ergo, go read the fucking thread and comment on it if you want to put forward an image of actually being genuinely interested in why 99+% of life scientists accept evolution as a fact.
I'm not responding to the rest of your post, since it's the same old shit. "Answer my question, you're ignoring my question, bla bla bla." Which is, in case you aren't aware, an ad nauseum logic fallacy. You fail at life.
Of course, you are always welcome to ask honest questions when you actually show a genuine interest in actually understanding evolution, instead of blindly criticizing it. You could start by once again meeting my demand. Read the thread I linked you to, and then summarize...
1. The evidence I am putting forward in support for common descent.
2. Why I feel it is significant evidence for comon descent.
And, if you feel that it isn't strong evidence for common descent...
3. Explain why.
You believe the answers are therein contained....I don't...this is the point.
Explain what you see as the scientific evidence which makes macroevol a scientific fact.
Do you understand?
Separate names with a comma.