The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[Loudmouth]

Badger me all you like, I'm not going back to read through all this mess to see where I got what just to get you off my @ss.

You'll just have to settle with the fact, it's the general idea I got, and if you think I'm lying, that works for me too. I don't care.

I think you are accusing scientists of using assumptions without any evidence or justification. You are doing so to make it look like you have a reason for ignoring the evidence when you don't have any such justification. I see creationists do it all of the time.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I think you are accusing scientists of using assumptions without any evidence or justification

Then you think I am lying...didn't I already comment on that?

I don't care.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then you think I am lying...didn't I already comment on that?

I don't care.

I have often thought that creationists don't care if they are being dishonest.

 

[46AND2]

Before I read on, are these tests confirmed 100% accurate, and if not...how accurate in percentages?

Paternity tests are only 100% accurate when excluding the possibility that someone is the father.

However, they are typically between 99% to 99.99% accurate to confirm paternity.

But when it comes to more distant relationships, I'll have to try to find that answer and get back to you.

 

[bhsmte]

I have often thought that creationists don't care if they are being dishonest.

When it is too painful to acknowledge evidence that contradicts a personal faith belief, being dishonest becomes acceptable.

 

[Nicky Blass]

When it is too painful to acknowledge evidence that contradicts a personal faith belief, being dishonest becomes acceptable.

That is sad but true.

 

[Ophiolite]

Badger me all you like, I'm not going back to read through all this mess to see where I got what just to get you off my @ss.

You'll just have to settle with the fact, it's the general idea I got, and if you think I'm lying, that works for me too. I don't care.

In a discussion forum the idea is to discuss ideas, concepts, events in a progressive fashion, moving from point to point and debating those points where a difference of opinion exists.

In a science forum, such as this sub-section of the main forum, such discussion should revolve around evidence. Arguably, on a Christian forum, it would reasonable to stipulate that a viewpoint is held on the basis of faith.

What seems to me unacceptable is that a participant in such a discussion should adopt an approach where they continue to condemn the evidence presented to them, but refuse to look at it because it is too much bother. Perhaps I could move slightly off-topic and ask if you think the most likely explanation for this ultimately rude behaviour is a) excessive arrogance, b) deeply felt fear, c) Dunning-Kruger effect? You may be best placed to select the motive.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Paternity tests are only 100% accurate when excluding the possibility that someone is the father.

However, they are typically between 99% to 99.99% accurate to confirm paternity.

But when it comes to more distant relationships, I'll have to try to find that answer and get back to you.

OK, and so far pretty accurate.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I have often thought that creationists don't care if they are being dishonest.

You do? Often think, that is.

You aren't doing it now, you are in reality being dishonest...just because you "think" I'm being dishonest doesn't mean it's a fact. But you can all get your jollies for that whether justified or not, I get it. You are so far behind in all this, I suppose you have to strike back somehow.

 

[USincognito]

You do? Often think, that is.

You aren't doing it now, you are in reality being dishonest...just because you "think" I'm being dishonest doesn't mean it's a fact. But you can all get your jollies for that whether justified or not, I get it. You are so far behind in all this, I suppose you have to strike back somehow.

Or, you could just stop being dishonest.

eta - 670 posts and no one has addressed the evidence in the first page. Shocking!

 

[Kenny'sID]

Or, you could just stop being dishonest.

eta - 670 posts and no one has addressed the evidence in the first page. Shocking!

Dishonest about what?

eta - 670 posts and no one has addressed the evidence in the first page. Shocking!

Again, was there something specific about the OP you wanted to address? Did you expect me to read it and say you convinced me evolution is true? Did you expect me to answer to everything there? Wold you go through the Bible bit by bit and do the same as you're asking me to do? Of course you wouldn't? Just what were you expecting, I mean realistically? I saw nothing there that proved a thing to me, is that enough of an address for you? What more do you want?

I've asked you several times to bring a piece of it out here, and let's get into it and one thread before plus 671 posts into this one and still you refuse. Shocking!

What are you afraid of?

I'll show you what you are afraid of:

Take the first sentence of the OP:

If whales evolved from terrestrial mammals we would expect to find certain things in addition to the characteristics that undeniably make them mammals.

Your very first word ""if" begins an assumption, a ridiculous assumption at that? It starts with a "dishonest" thing that tries to slip one past the reader.

"If pigs flew, we would expect to find......" but they don't, at least I've never seen one fly, so it stops right there. Get it. Seriously, you can't be that naive.

And your pitiful little limb buds? and sorry I just have to make fun of that. I've seen those little things so often, and see what a big thing they make out of something that they have never seen develop into anything other than pitiful little limb buds, that it's just very funny to me. Are we assuming they have?

So you see, it's just not worth my trying to cover the entire OP, but happy to have you bring some of it out here, I'll say what I have to say about it, and move on, that is if you can handle it, if you can't as appears to be the case, then best

That said, can you see how I would think that you are afraid to do that? I know I would be if I depended on such nonsense to back my case.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Your very first word ""if" begins an assumption, a ridiculous assumption at that? It starts with a "dishonest" thing that tries to slip one past the reader.

What nonsense? How is asking a Question or putting forward a testable hypothesis, being dishonest? Let's see you do this. If you sat in a Court and listened to some of the cases propositioned there, your head would pop off! Yet every Judge has to sit there and listen to the arguments from both sides without any presuppositions. You literally start with the Biggest clouding presupposition that prevents you from even finishing to read the question! I think you don't Science.

"If pigs flew, we would expect to find......" but they don't, at least I've never seen one fly, so it stops right there. Get it. Seriously, you can't be that naive.

Well, Let's try it. Finish the Question and see how it works. Either your question will be a valid testable falsifiable hypothesis with a reasonably exclusive confirmation result, or you have to reword it to get a better scientific test for your hypothesis... We'll get you understanding Science yet!

And your pitiful little limb buds? and sorry I just have to make fun of that. I've seen those little things so often, and see what a big thing they make out of something that they have never seen develop into anything other than pitiful little limb buds, that it's just very funny to me. Are we assuming they have?

We see those same pitiful limb buds in our own development.

So you see, it's just not worth my trying to cover the entire OP, but happy to have you bring some of it out here, I'll say what I have to say about it, and move on, that is if you can handle it, if you can't as appears to be the case, then best

Do it one piece at a time then if you're afraid we can't handle it all at once. Don't tackle all of it & be careful not to contradict yourself from answer to answer.

That said, can you see how I would think that you are afraid to do that? I know I would be if I depended on such nonsense to back my case.

.....so, still not attempting to answer then?

 

[Kenny'sID]

What nonsense? How is asking a Question or putting forward a testable hypothesis, being dishonest?

It's dishonest when one uses such hypothesis as a partial basis for what they now call likely fact and teach as fact.

Well, Let's try it. Finish the Question and see how it works. Either your question will be a valid testable falsifiable hypothesis with a reasonably exclusive confirmation result, or you have to reword it to get a better scientific test for your hypothesis... We'll get you understanding Science yet!

Science I understand, and actually I understand the people that try to make it what it is as well, but to call someones "dishonest" understanding of how things work, Science....well, that's just dishonest.

We see those same pitiful limb buds in our own development.

And?

Just another piece of useless evidence you add to other useless evidence in order to fool yourselves and others.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

It's dishonest when one uses such hypothesis as a partial basis for what they now call likely fact and teach as fact.

You're about 40 steps ahead of yourself. Take it one step at a time and see why everyone accepts the evidence for Evolution. Be honest.

Science I understand, and actually I understand the people that try to make it what it is as well, but to call someones "dishonest" understanding of how things work, Science....well, that's just dishonest.

No, sorry, you really don't.

And?

Just another piece of useless evidence you add to other useless evidence in order to fool yourselves and others.

and there you have it. Like I said, go back & work through it one step at a time. Don't move on until you fully grasp the step you're at first. Ask questions, plenty of people have offered to help you understand, if you are actually serious about understanding the Science, that is.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You're about 40 steps ahead of yourself. Take it one step at a time and see why everyone accepts the evidence for Evolution. Be honest.

Then go through those 40 steps and shop me, or are you ging to just throwit all out there, evexpect me to draw the same conclusion as you and if I don't there is something wrong with me. Again, show me

No, sorry, you really don't.

Since "saying it doesn't make it true" doesn't really fit into the agenda here, there is not much sense in my trying to make the point..

and there you have it. Like I said, go back & work through it one step at a time. Don't move on until you fully grasp the step you're at first. Ask questions, plenty of people have offered to help you understand, if you are actually serious about understanding the Science, that is.

Are you not paying attention? You're just going to waste our time?

LOL, go back and read, I showed you what I fully grasped from the start. I did as you say, didn't move on, and will not/cannot move on because I "fully grasp" the assumption it was based on.

 

[USincognito]

Again, was there something specific about the OP you wanted to address?

Yeah. The content.

Did you expect me to read it and say you convinced me evolution is true?

No. I expected you to address the content.

Did you expect me to answer to everything there?

It would be nice if you answered anything there.

Wold you go through the Bible bit by bit and do the same as you're asking me to do?

This thread is not about the Bible and this forum for the discussion of Creationism and Evolution.

Take the first sentence of the OP:

Your very first word ""if" begins an assumption, a ridiculous assumption at that? It starts with a "dishonest" thing that tries to slip one past the reader.{snip meta debate and avoidance of the actual content}

You confuse a premise with an assumption. Are you unfamiliar with syllogisms? And you don't seem to realize that "assumption" is not some magical word you can say and poof away the evidence in a could of smoke.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It would be nice if you answered anything there

Then we're good to go, right?

You confuse a premise with an assumption. Are you unfamiliar with syllogisms? And you don't seem to realize that "assumption" is not some magical word you can say and poof away the evidence in a could of smoke.

Oh?

Premise:

noun
1.
Also, premiss. Logic. a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.
2.
premises.

1. a tract of land including its buildings.
2. a building together with its grounds or other appurtenances.
3. the property forming the subject of a conveyance or bequest.

3.
Law.

1. a basis, stated or assumed, on which reasoning proceeds.
2. an earlier statement in a document.
3. (in a bill in equity) the statement of facts upon which the complaint is based.

verb (used with object), premised, premising.
4.
to set forth beforehand, as by way of introduction or explanation.
5.
to assume, either explicitly or implicitly, (a proposition) as a premise for a conclusion.


verb (used without object), premised, premising.

6.
to state or assume a premise.

Please, no more excuses...premise/assumption, call it what you like, neither is real. It's inconsiderate to waste mine or the readers time with excuses that try to make the invalid...valid. You bring out something valid from that mess or I'm going to have to stop taking you seriously.

 

[bhsmte]

I love to watch cognitive dissonance in action and the defense mechanisms being engaged to combat the same.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I love to watch cognitive dissonance in action and the defense mechanisms being engaged to combat the same.

More drivel to cover up the drivel. Why don't you instead offer some viable argument?

Wish I could find some entertainment value in this as well but after awhile, it just becomes so ho hum, it's almost painful, even a little sad to watch.

 

[USincognito]

More drivel to cover up the drivel. Why don't you instead offer some viable argument?

Wish I could find some entertainment value in this as well but after awhile, it just becomes so ho hum, it's almost painful, even a little sad to watch.

Bahahahahahah! This guy is the Flame Warrior Ennui incarnate.
http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm

Ennui only rouses himself from his torpor to cajole other Warriors to be more interesting - without, of course, ever contributing anything of interest himself. Ennui has limited weaponry at his disposal, but his majestic affectation of boredom provides an effective defense to attacks. When pressed in battle he will announce his intention of moving on to a more stimulating forum, but instead he will generally lurk quietly until the threat passes.​

Bahahahah!