Help Me Debunk this Article

[Naraoia]

Unfortunately, some scientific ideas are so complicated they cannot be explained unless you get technical. Evolution theory is one of those complicated ideas.

You tried Evolution 101 yet?

Not to worry though, evolution theory is complicated to most evolutionists. Many of them can’t explain it and simply accept it purely on faith in the scientists who come up with the ideas.

Your inability to understand an explanation is hardly evidence that we don't understand it either.

They can’t even describe the anatomy of a frog.

By your superior understanding, when did the anatomy of a frog become part of the theory of evolution?

That we share similar genes is a fact. That we share the same grandparents is an assumption.

They are simply assuming we share the same grandparents because we share similar genes.

If you think that then you don't have a clue how common descent is inferred.

Mere similarity does not imply common ancestry.

Common ancestry is evidenced by the distribution of similarities among living things.

It is also evidenced by similarities that make no functional sense whatsoever. (Such as the famous chromosome fusion. Or some of these.)

Do we know who's tagging them? I remember AV saying something about how scientists are commanded by God to a) improve our lives and b) protect Israel.

I'm pretty sure the "don't attack" tags are gattacca's, or however her handle is spelled. I'd like to know who added the "attack" tags, though...

 

[AV1611VET]

Do we know who's tagging them? I remember AV saying something about how scientists are commanded by God to a) improve our lives and b) protect Israel.

I don't even know how to do tags.

Ain't never messed with them.

 

[Naraoia]

It is true (too bad). But at least you can give a name which is the closest one. So the OP could understand: Oh, it is not monkey, but is "xxxxxxxxxxxxxx".

What's so hard to understand about "extinct monkey"? Do I really need to go and dig around a subject I'm not very familiar with just so you can have a name that says even less to you than it does to me?

(FWIW, according to the Paleobiology Database, the oldest simians (called anthropoids in their terminology) are Eocene creatures like Eosimia and Pondaungia. Feel free to look them up, but it's quite hard to find non-technical information about these beasts, and it looks like their place in primate evolution is uncertain to say the least. There's got to be a reason entire books have been compiled about the origin of monkeys and apes... In conclusion, it looks like I couldn't honestly give you a specific name even if I were an expert on long-dead monkey-like creatures.)

Someone (claimed to be a knowledgeable evolutionist) did thrown that name to me before. I never bother even to pronounce it.

I hope you're not talking about the Darwinius debacle... Though neither Darwinius nor "Ida" are that hard to pronounce.

 

[Doveaman]

You tried Evolution 101 yet?

I pretty much get the idea. In the end, though, I am still putting my faith in those who do the actual research and hope they are telling the truth. But in science you guys never tell the truth, do you?

Your inability to understand an explanation is hardly evidence that we don't understand it either.

I agree. But my point is that for many so-called evolutionists, evolution theory is faith based and not research based since they didn't do the research themselves. They are simply putting their faith in the few who did, similar to how we religious folks put our faith in what Jesus did.

By your superior understanding, when did the anatomy of a frog become part of the theory of evolution?

Didn’t frogs evolve from tadpoles?

If you think that then you don't have a clue how common descent is inferred.

Mere similarity does not imply common ancestry.

Common ancestry is evidenced by the distribution of similarities among living things.

It is also evidenced by similarities that make no functional sense whatsoever. (Such as the famous chromosome fusion. Or some of these.)

Whether it is mere similarity or distribution of similarities, the assumption (not fact) of common ancestry is based on those similarities.

 

[Naraoia]

I pretty much get the idea. In the end, though, I am still putting my faith in those who do the actual research and hope they are telling the truth. But in science you guys never tell the truth, do you?

Oh no, we are all consummate liars. I'm lying to you right now.

I agree. But my point is that for many so-called evolutionists, evolution theory is faith based and not research based since they didn't do the research themselves.

No one did all the research themselves. In any field of knowledge. It is impossible for a single person to repeat all the relevant experiments.

By your reasoning, you could dismiss every single scientific idea anyone ever held. They all stood on the shoulders of giants, whether they be Isaac Newton himself or little Billy reading Stephen Hawking in a corner.

The key thing about scientific observations is that a great majority of them are repeatable. Some of them are practically impossible for the average person to repeat, but for others you can't even say that. Anyone could study the theory of phylogenetics, download a bunch of protein sequences from Genbank, obtain good alignment, model selection and phylogeny software (for free!), and generate trees. When someone in another lab can easily repeat your experiment, you in fact have a huge stake in telling the truth about the results. Namely, your reputation. If not your entire career.

(If you think scientists have no interest in tearing apart false or incorrect claims, you've never read any scientific literature.)

They are simply putting their faith in the few who did, similar to how we religious folks put our faith in what Jesus did.

With the minor difference that you can't repeat his "experiments".

Didn’t frogs evolve from tadpoles?

Um... no? Where on earth did you get that idea? And even if they did, what's that have to do with understanding evolutionary theory?

Whether it is mere similarity or distribution of similarities, the assumption (not fact) of common ancestry is based on those similarities.

And anyone who (1) calls it an assumption (2) doesn't get the difference between similarity and patterns of similarity should probably familiarise with the concept before criticising it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't even know how to do tags.

Ain't never messed with them.

Me either. I never knew they were there till someone pointed it out a few years ago. I'm sure they serve a purpose beyond pro-Israeli propaganda... <staff edit>

 

[AirPo]

Me either. I never knew they were there till someone pointed it out a few years ago. I'm sure they serve a purpose beyond pro-Israeli propaganda... <staff edit>

They are like keywords for searches. Click on a tag and you get a list of all threads with that same tag.

 

[AV1611VET]

They are like keywords for searches. Click on a tag and you get a list of all threads with that same tag.

What good does it do, since you have to be in the thread anyway?

 

[AirPo]

What good does it do, since you have to be in the thread anyway?

You don't, click tags to go to the tags search page.

 

[Non sequitur]

Why isn't this thread titled, "Help Me Understand this Article" or "Help Me to see if there is truth in this Article"?

That would appear more honest and knowledge-seeking...

 

[selfinflikted]

That would appear more honest and knowledge-seeking...

Because the OP isn't interested in honesty or learning?

 

[SkyWriting]

We can use science to verify the Bible. For example science says that the world is 4.6 billion years and Noah's flood was what we would call a local flood.

The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally.
Heartland Forensic Pathology: Forensic Science and the Scientific Method

 

[Elias526]

What's so hard to understand about "extinct monkey"? Do I really need to go and dig around a subject I'm not very familiar with just so you can have a name that says even less to you than it does to me?

You just do not want us laughing at whatever it is you come up with. Hay Jed look at your cousin ernie !!! I told ya were a monkeys uncle, ha ha ha.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally.
Heartland Forensic Pathology: Forensic Science and the Scientific Method

 

[Wiccan_Child]

They are like keywords for searches. Click on a tag and you get a list of all threads with that same tag.

Ooo exciting. Seven years and I didn't know that

 

[RickG]

The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its standard form because it does not work for past events. Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally.
Heartland Forensic Pathology: Forensic Science and the Scientific Method

Looking at what I put in bold from your quote, are you suggesting that past forensic events cannot be deduced from physical evidence, or the scientific method cannot deduce the past from physical evidence? Would you elaborate please?

 

[Elias526]

Click on a tag and you get a list of all threads with that same tag.

What is a "tag"?

 

[sandwiches]

We can use science to verify the Bible. For example science says that the world is 4.6 billion years and Noah's flood was what we would call a local flood.

19 Do not quench the Spirit.
20 Do not despise prophecies.
21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
22 Abstain from every form of evil.

So, we go back to what I was saying:
To verify supposedly "divinely-inspired" interpretations, we must use "human knowledge."

I guess in the end we must rely on our human senses and knowledge. Surprise...

 

[sandwiches]

Whatever you said to others will affect YOU the most. So, if you are wise, say the truth, or say it with honor. You do that for your own benefit.

Then why did you speak dishonorably by being condescending and using cheap salesmen tricks to sell your point?

 

[Davian]

We can use science to verify the Bible. For example science says that the world is 4.6 billion years and Noah's flood was what we would call a local flood.

19 Do not quench the Spirit.
20 Do not despise prophecies.
21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
22 Abstain from every form of evil.

Jazer, is that you?