The evidence for Evolution.

[Jimmy D]

What does since Saturday have to do with something I semi recall from months ago? Oh I see, it makes it look a lot worse than it is and the insecure among you need all the help they can create. Funny thing you are so predictable, but have a field day with it, it's kind of funny to watch...certainly a lot more interesting that the redefined words.

Then you are saying I am most certainly a liar or not? Does the fact I don't recall it mean some people are not liars?

Why? I mentioned it because it's true of course. Even some of the Atheist around here, if they are honest can verify it, but I would suspect that's not the way many of you work. Instead you will keep quiet and let it be used used it for your benefit instead. Sound about right?

BTW, are you aware of the redefining? I'd be very careful with my answer.

LOL

On saturday you made a claim that people are changing definitions in science to "pull the wool" over people's eye's. When asked to be more specific you made a lot of excuses.

Please provide us of examples of definitions changing in science to pull the wool over peoples eyes or admit your mistake, that's how these debates work.

If the definition of certain words are different when used in terms of science it is because they need to be more specific to avoid confusion, not create it, as you seem to be claiming. Besides, who exactly are you claiming that 'they' are trying to fool with these new definitions you claim exist?

You are just clutching at straws because verifiable scientific observations show that your beliefs about the history of the natural world are sadly mistaken. You've shown in the past that you can't debate specific facts (ERVs for example) so all you're left with is your increduilty and these weird conspiracies.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Jimmy, would you answer the question please, the one at the end of my last post to you?

I already told you what I would be happy to do for you in that area..accept it or continue to whine about it...that's all you get either way.

Actually you are probably going to want to wallow in it all you can, while you can so, though it make no difference to me, I'll expect that and get back with you soon as I can with those answers.

 

[Jimmy D]

Jimmy, would you answer the question please, the one at the end of my last post to you?

You mean this one?

BTW, are you aware of the redefining? I'd be very careful with my answer.

I believe I did answer...

If the definition of certain words are different when used in terms of science it is because they need to be more specific to avoid confusion, not create it, as you seem to be claiming.

If you have any examples I'll be happy to discuss them. If you can show that they're redefined to confuse or obfuscate as you seem to be claiming I'll be very surprised.

Please enlighten me.

(I'm not whining BTW, just pointing out the error of your ways , we wouldn't want any gullible readers falling for this nonsense).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What claim did I make, I mean exactly?

That people redefine words to argue against creationism.
You have a really short memory span, it seems.

Do you realise that we can click the "back" button a few times and end up in the very post where you made these claims?

Let me remind you, of what you said:

I've seen those opposed to creation redefine a few words here, and often it is not the definition in the dictionary, but a special definition for science, but not really even for science...it's a special definition for people with an agenda, in that if they can get others to buy it, they can pull the wool over their eyes even easier.

See?

You weren't paying attention to the question. Asked in "general" because you alluded to the fact it was a general problem, but I would expect you to skirt that one since you know it is not and your claim was baseless or a lie as we are putting it.

You asked for examples, and I gave you one.

 

[Speedwell]

In fairness to Kenny,

He really knows very little about science, has been heavily indoctrinated that it is nothing but a satanic conspiracy and may well have been unaware that many words have specialized definitions in scientific usage.

I think that what would be a slanderous accusation coming from someone else ought to be excused him.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

In fairness to Kenny,

He really knows very little about science, has been heavily indoctrinated that it is nothing but a satanic conspiracy and may well have been unaware that many words have specialized definitions in scientific usage.

I think that what would be a slanderous accusation coming from someone else ought to be excused him.

I don't get it though - If we're making observations here in reality that simply renders what he believes to be factually false (i.e. 6,000 year old Earth instead of 4.5billion years, original created 'kinds' instead of evolution of all life including us from UCAL, or at the least, from other common ancestors, etc.), then why avoid the obvious so obviously? Either concede his beliefs don't match reality and hang up the internet, or re-examine his beliefs! I don't understand how lying to himself & others who engage him could make anything any better. Isn't there a Commandment about lying, or something, even if it is to himself??

 

[Kenny'sID]

You mean this one?



I believe I did answer...

If the definition of certain words are different when used in terms of science it is because they need to be more specific to avoid confusion, not create it, as you seem to be claiming.

If you have any examples I'll be happy to discuss them. If you can show that they're redefined to confuse or obfuscate as you seem to be claiming I'll be very surprised.

Please enlighten me.

(I'm not whining BTW, just pointing out the error of your ways , we wouldn't want any gullible readers falling for this nonsense).

I see, you danced around it so, that your answer was hardly recognizable... as a matter of fact it still doesn't look like an answer.

But, point made just the same, you knew all along what I said was true, Yet you kept it quiet and all but accused me of lying when I didn't immediately recall the instances.

Not unlike I mentioned I suspected was happening.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That people redefine words to argue against creationism.
You have a really short memory span, it seems.

Do you realise that we can click the "back" button a few times and end up in the very post where you made these claims?

No, I believe the memory leak might be on your end. If you don't recall, click that back button and see it has been verified, though reluctantly, that the terms are indeed changed by scientists. Or do you still want to argue that? At which point I'd ask you to check your memory for my comments on getting you that info.

As far as backing the claim of the fact the definitions are changed, are you really serious with that expectation, in that, no matter what I say or how true it may be, you will ever be satisfied with my back up?

Example...You want to back up the ridiculous comments of why we have lower back pain? I think we'll both have about the same chance of convincing the other but you first...that is if you are into wasting our time.

I gave my take on the matter just as you did with the back pain. I think you are wrong and you think I am wrong. I say what I say, not to convince you but to get it out there some of the deceptions I suspect within the deception. It's not anything I am even going to try to prove to you, that was never my goal.

As far as Atheists with the goal of lying in wait for something to pounce on and bend so far out of proportion they convince themselves they have a win to help out with their insecure nature...I guess some of you are cut from the same mold, and you will always see this as some type of win. However if you feel what you clearly did here is that important to your security, you must need it pretty bad so, who am I to burst your bubble...that would just be mean of me.

 

[Jimmy D]

I see, you danced around it so, that your answer was hardly recognizable... as a matter of fact it still doesn't look like an answer.

But, point made just the same, you knew all along what I said was true, Yet you kept it quiet and all but accused me of lying when I didn't immediately recall the instances.

Not unlike I mentioned I suspected was happening.

No. I'm not denying that definitions of words can change - in any area of life, that's how language works.

The thrust of your argument is nonsense however. If as you claim 'scientists' redefine terms to obfuscate and confuse (or as you put it pull the wool over our eyes to further their agenda) please give an example we can discuss.

I repeat, please give an example, if you can't then your argument can be dismissed as the delusion it is.

As far as backing the claim of the fact the definitions are changed, are you really serious with that expectation, in that, no matter what I say or how true it may be, you will ever be satisfied with my back up?

Despite multiple members asking you have yet to do that, if I've missed it please provide the post number.

As far as Atheists with the goal of lying in wait for something to pounce on and bend so far out of proportion they convince themselves they have a win to help out with their insecure nature...I guess some of you are cut from the same mold, and you will always see this as some type of win. However if you feel what you clearly did here is that important to your security, you must need it pretty bad so, who am I to burst your bubble...that would just be mean of me.

Not really Kenny, some of us just enjoy the discussion, and you'll notice that it's not just atheists who disagree with you so spare us your indignation.

I mentioned that lurkers could be reading this so obviously false and divisive posts like yours should be called out.

This is neither here nor there though, please give us an example of scientists redefining terms or words to 'pull the wool over our eyes'.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, I believe the memory leak might be on your end. If you don't recall, click that back button and see it has been verified, though reluctantly, that the terms are indeed changed by scientists.

What terms? What scientists? And how were they changed, for what purpose?

Or do you still want to argue that? At which point I'd ask you to check your memory for my comments on getting you that info.

I don't recall anyone here saying that sientists have "redefined" words to suite some anti-religious agenda. Perhaps you can give me a post number or a quote.
For the record, if anyone did say that, they were wrong.

As far as backing the claim of the fact the definitions are changed, are you really serious with that expectation, in that, no matter what I say or how true it may be, you will ever be satisfied with my back up?

When someone makes such accusations / claims, I expect them to be able to back it up, yes. You think that's unfair? I should "just believe you" instead?

Example...You want to back up the ridiculous comments of why we have lower back pain?

I already told you why. Because of the shape and nature of our spine.
Because we walk upright, there is a LOT more stress on the spine as opposed to other animals, who walk on all 4s. They can "spread" the stress accross the body.
In bipedal humans, all downward forces come together in the lower section of the back. This causes all kinds of problems. Resulting in backpains.

Lower back pains is the leading cause of disability in americans under 45.

I gave my take on the matter just as you did with the back pain.

And the difference is that the scientific perspective is actually verifiable and testable. It has actual explanatory power.

While your perspective, is just a religious statement.
You should reflect on that.

I say what I say, not to convince you but to get it out there some of the deceptions I suspect within the deception. It's not anything I am even going to try to prove to you, that was never my goal.

And I'm just pointing out the mistakes you make. You make claims and when I ask you to support them, you say things like "I don't recall" or "are you serious in that expectation?".

As far as Atheists with the goal of lying in wait for something to pounce on and bend so far out of proportion they convince themselves they have a win to help out with their insecure nature...

I'm not here to "win" anything.

I guess some of you are cut from the same mold, and you will always see this as some type of win. However if you feel what you clearly did here is that important to your security, you must need it pretty bad so, who am I to burst your bubble...that would just be mean of me.

This is not about me.

 

[Kenny'sID]

When someone makes such accusations / claims, I expect them to be able to back it up, yes. You think that's unfair? I should "just believe you" instead?

No, you can believe it or not. As I mentioned, being an Atheist and on this particular subject, your opinion or belief in mine is irrelevant to me. Just like many Christian *assumptions* as you would call them, they are my opinions, not all about you, and I don't care if you believe them or not. And
I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to get you to. But if you want to hound me, like some vulture that thinks his long awaited and now injured next meal is within his grasp, go for, I expect it.

Besides, didn't I already tell you, you are wasting our time trying to get me to prove anything to you. Don't you know by now that doesn't work here? Read the board, and the endless arguments and you might be able to pick up on the fact. Or if nothing else try reading my last post. If you choose not to hear me on the matter, put your fingers back in your ears and sing the star Spangled Banner real loud...whatever...I don't care

Take this for instance:

And the difference is that the scientific perspective is actually verifiable and testable. It has actual explanatory power.

Haven't we already gone over that? Am I to keep telling you no, it is not, and you keep repeating, yes it is?...and just how long do you want to keep that up?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No. I'm not denying that definitions of words can change - in any area of life, that's how language works.

The thrust of your argument is nonsense however. If as you claim 'scientists' redefine terms to obfuscate and confuse (or as you put it pull the wool over our eyes to further their agenda) please give an example we can discuss.

I repeat, please give an example, if you can't then your argument can be dismissed as the delusion it is.



Despite multiple members asking you have yet to do that, if I've missed it please provide the post number.



Not really Kenny, some of us just enjoy the discussion, and you'll notice that it's not just atheists who disagree with you so spare us your indignation.

I mentioned that lurkers could be reading this so obviously false and divisive posts like yours should be called out.

This is neither here nor there though, please give us an example of scientists redefining terms or words to 'pull the wool over our eyes'.

Don't have the time to read/comment on your post but I suspect I would just direct you to my last post here in reply anyway so, for the moment, lets just
assume I'm doing that. I'll read it later and If I find anything new or if interest, I'll reply.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Haven't we already gone over that? Am I to keep telling you no, it is not, and you keep repeating, yes it is?...and just how long do you want to keep that up?

so verifiable scientific studies on the topic like http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-015-0336-y with a multitude of professionals learned on the topic with years (if not decades) of experience contributing, can be trumped by you, a layperson with a vested interest in not understanding the evidence... If "No, No it's Not" - Show us where these pithy science-types get it so wrong! I'll wait.....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Besides, didn't I already tell you, you are wasting our time trying to get me to prove anything to you. Don't you know by now that doesn't work here?

Ow, I know....
But such a fact can't be pointed out enough times.
In fact, contrary to what you think, that is the main point that I try to get accross.

For lurkers, it must be very fascinating to see that rational people provide proof after proof, evidence after evidence, explanation after explanation....
While creationists like, are here flat out saying that you can't provide any such things and that all you can do is tell us what you believe on faith.

Yep. The point exactly!
Thanks for making it for me.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Ow, I know....
But such a fact can't be pointed out enough times.
In fact, contrary to what you think, that is the main point that I try to get accross.

For lurkers, it must be very fascinating to see that rational people provide proof after proof, evidence after evidence, explanation after explanation....
While creationists like, are here flat out saying that you can't provide any such things and that all you can do is tell us what you believe on faith.

Yep. The point exactly!
Thanks for making it for me.

Except you have provided no proof. Wait a sec, I thought science offered no proof? Get back with me once y'all get your story straight on that one. You don't think some lurkers are intelligent enough to see you got nothing? Even your evidence is just opinion. Take the lower back pain that is said to be caused by the fact we were supposed to walk on 4 legs lol (excuse me, I just can't help but laugh at that, and the fact scientists show themselves more daft than ever before doesn't go unappreciated) Anyway, that is what we call opinion, it's your opinion or that of whoever came up with the nonsense, you got nothing to make it anywhere near a fact...nothing whatsoever.

But in the end it's your opinion because it's what you wan to see and it's little more than comic relief for those that know that. And BTW, you dupe yourselves with some of the silliest things but it would be CF without you, so God love your deluded little hearts.

 

[Kenny'sID]

so verifiable scientific studies on the topic like http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-015-0336-y with a multitude of professionals learned on the topic with years (if not decades) of experience contributing, can be trumped by you, a layperson with a vested interest in not understanding the evidence... If "No, No it's Not" - Show us where these pithy science-types get it so wrong! I'll wait.....

Show me what they got right. I'll wait. Matter of fact, I've been waiting for awhile but no one seems to be able to bring forth anything at all.

As far as the tired old line "are you smarter than all those smart scientists" nope, but God is...are you smarter than him?

 

[Speedwell]

Show me what they got right. I'll wait. Matter of fact, I've been waiting for awhile but no one seems to be able to bring forth anything at all.

As far as the tired old line "are you smarter than all those smart scientists" nope, but God is...are you smarter than him?

Not me. I could never dream up anything that worked so well as biological evolution.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Not me. I could never dream up anything that worked so well as biological evolution.

Oh, don't sell yourself short...they dreamed it up, so surly you can dream up something equally bogus..

 

[Speedwell]

Oh, don't sell yourself short...they dreamed it up, so surly you can dream up something equally bogus..

No, God dreamed it up.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, God dreamed it up

What are you saying exactly? That God did things differently than he said he did in the Bible? That He created some type of evolution that took scads of time for the creation process to complete instead of creating everything in a week like he said he did?