The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[florida2]

So the entire rebuttal to this thread is basically 'some scientists have shown to be dishonest therefore I can't believe any science ever'

Pathetic.

There are religious people who have been dishonest or committed crimes. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to accept anything any religious person says.

It's been said several times, but if you are interested in money then science really really isn't for you.

 

[amariselle]

So the entire rebuttal to this thread is basically 'some scientists have shown to be dishonest therefore I can't believe any science ever'

Pathetic.

There are religious people who have been dishonest or committed crimes. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to accept anything any religious person says.

It's been said several times, but if you are interested in money then science really really isn't for you.

Maybe you shouldn't just trust "religious" people, maybe you should trust only God.

Mankind has twisted religion too. And money has motivated religious people to lie as well. (And yes, that includes Christians, and it continues to happen to this day)

That's life, people love money, people are motivated by money.

If you think people are never motivated by money in this life, I'm not sure where you've been.

It may be true that "science isn't for them", but there HAVE been scientists motivated by money nonetheless. (And also motivated by the desire for recognition)

THAT is what is truly "pathetic."

I included some links earlier to information on 3 or 4 scientists that were in fact motivated by money or fame and recognition. They were motivated by the need to get published and to get paid.

I can understand why many people may not want to admit this actually happens in the scientific world, but it does. (And we actually do not know to what extent, because it's safe to say there are some that have not been caught)

Also, in the field of science (as in religion) it is not just about one scientist here or there being fraudulent. That fraudulent scientist has a potential impact on the work of countless other scientists.

In the cases I mentioned, the scientists were highly recognized and had had their work published in highly accredited scientific journals. They were highly respected in their field. Other scientists in their field were using their work for years to do their own studies. Which obviously calls into question the results of any subsequent studies done relying in any way on the fraudulent and inaccurate studies. It's an obvious trickle down effect.

So, it is only wise to question what goes on in science (and yes, in religion) today. We should never blindly accept what someone else says as correct or true.

That too would be "pathetic".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Again, are they really teaching creationism in Schools?

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...d_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.htmlv

 

[DogmaHunter]

It deserves to be honestly explored, just as Darwinian evolution is.

Nobody stops you from doing the work.

But it seems no creationist is willing to do that. Not even those disguised in a lab coat. They want to skip all the work and get their story straight into a school textbook. They want a shortcut, for some reason.

They can take the same path every other idea in science can take... the one where they are picked apart by their peers. The path where the idea needs to meet the standards of the scientific method. If the idea survives that journey, then you'll get to print it in a textbook.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Research the lies and deception that have taken place in modern day science.

Are you implying that if a certain person, or group of persons, who belong to a larger group or movement or similar, cheats and lies... that we then can go ahead and assume that the entire larger group/movement is fraudulent?

If that is not what you are saying, then what are you saying?

 

[bhsmte]

Well, that's fine. I understand that's your opinion. The fact is, however, that I don't find science threatening at all.

Based on experience, I would certainly expect you to say that.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course not. Does that mean you have chosen to go contrary on me again and read something else into what I said because you are afraid to post what I asked for some strange reason?

I mean everyone can see what I said, what's wrong with you?

Does this type of evasion, usually work for you?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Does this type of evasion, usually work for you?

Yep, that's what I thought.

Again, everyone can see just what happened here.

 

[bhsmte]

Yep, that's what I thought.

Again, everyone can see just what happened here.

Hilarious!

Indeed, I would bet the vast majority of observers of this thread, can see exactly what is going on here.

 

[Larniavc]

Fragmentary?

But that is just fragments of bone put together to look like an animal.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Hilarious!

Indeed, I would bet the vast majority of observers of this thread, can see exactly what is going on here.

Folks will see what they want to see here, and just as people go, a few will be objective and see what's real and not allow their bias to cloud the facts.

You know, on another thread when I first asked that someone please bring forth something from a page or pages of so-called evidence, to let me know why it was evidence and how it proves to you evolution was a fact, it wasn't a trick. I wasn't thinking "I've got them now" I was actually expecting to first see what y'all consider evidence because I was unable to see it at all, and to discuss the details. But now just as then, a very strange occurrence that I didn't expect has cropped up and I'm curious as to why.

Could you at least tell me if you think the request is unreasonable, and if so, why? Seems to me, getting into the details is much more apt to reveal the truth in any matter, but I guess those thoughts aren't shared by some of you?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you look at all this so-called evidence as a whole and then conclude evolution is a fact. So the only way to disprove it is to knock the evidence out one at a time, and if I personally conclude the details reveal little if any evidence, I can conclude that "whole" has little basis for fact as well. See, just as two wrongs don't make a right, a lot of what we think is evidence but is not, does not make evolution true. That makes it easy to fool ones self into believing it's a fact but that's about as far as it goes.

 

[bhsmte]

Folks will see what they want to see here, and just as people go, a few will be objective and see what's real and not allow their bias to cloud the facts.

You know, on another thread when I first asked that someone please bring forth something from a page or pages of so-called evidence, to let me know why it was evidence and how it proves to you evolution was a fact, it wasn't a trick. I wasn't thinking "I've got them now" I was actually expecting to first see what y'all consider evidence because I was unable to see it at all, and to discuss the details. But now just as then, a very strange occurrence that I didn't expect has cropped up and I'm curious as to why.

Could you at least tell me if you think the request is unreasonable, and if so, why? Seems to me, getting into the details is much more apt to reveal the truth in any matter, but I guess those thoughts aren't shared by some of you?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you look at all this so-called evidence as a whole and then conclude evolution is a fact. So the only way to disprove it is to knock the evidence out one at a time, and if I personally conclude the details reveal little if any evidence, I can conclude that "whole" has little basis for fact as well. See, just as two wrongs don't make a right, a lot of what we think is evidence but is not, does not make evolution true. That makes it easy to fool ones self into believing it's a fact but that's about as far as it goes.

150 years of standing up to scientific scrutiny and the evidence just keeps getting stronger, does tend to lead me to believe evolution is likely a fact.

Other folks expertly trained and educated in this area tend to agree, like Francis Collins, the devout Christian. What to you think of Francis? Is he off his rocker?

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/f...on-and-the-church-part-2#sthash.KSbmLfsI.dpuf

 

[USincognito]

Looks to me like that wasn't a lie at all. Didn't I already ask somewhere in this thread what was the point or something to that affect? Did you ever answer that? I'll try to find the post.

I answered in post #137.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-kennysid-thread.7954348/page-7#post-69843529
A post you quoted, but selectively, in post #151.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-kennysid-thread.7954348/page-8#post-69845442

Do you folks not even pay attention to what's being posted here?

 

[bhsmte]

I answered in post #137.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-kennysid-thread.7954348/page-7#post-69843529
A post you quoted, but selectively, in post #151.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-kennysid-thread.7954348/page-8#post-69845442

Do you folks not even pay attention to what's being posted here?

Selective attention.

 

[USincognito]

What am I talking about? How about this?



I don't need "psychic powers", you told me plainly that you are going to start a thread in order to challenge my sincerity in discussing the "evidence."



I did no such thing. I even asked you to clarify your motive for starting this thread if you think I'm "lying", you refused to do so.

And Kenny, who you directed this thread at, agreed that it seems you started this thread to attempt to convince him (based on evidence for evolution) why his beliefs to the contrary are incorrect.



But, since you've convinced yourself I'm lying, I'll respectfully leave. After all, there is nothing else you can possibly say to someone who has decided you're telling lies.

Have a nice night.

Wow. Just wow. You've been here for 12 years and still haven't figured out that indentations are for quoted material?

And you missed the two previous times I quoted myself?

 

[amariselle]

Wow. Just wow. You've been here for 12 years and still haven't figured out that indentations are for quoted material?

View attachment 178024

And you missed the two previous times I quoted myself?
View attachment 178025

Ha ha, thanks for the condescending attitude. Much appreciated.

 

[USincognito]

Well, let's see what evidence has gone unaddressed so far.

- Physiology, embryology and genetics supporting whale evolution
- Diversity of globin genes in modern vertebrates to do whole genome duplication in ancestral population.
- Common ancestry for animals and fungi.
- A hominid skull that none of the Creationists could tell if it was 'fully ape' or 'fully human'.
- Genetic evidence showing that lungfish are the closest sarcopterygian to tetrapods.
- Feathers and hair evolving from scales.
- Image of a series of hominid skulls.
- Homologous genetic section between humans and chimpanzees.
- Photos of three transitional fossils.
- Embryology, and specifically Evolutionary Development.
- ARHGAP11B and human brain evolution.
- The evolution of sexual reproduction in primordial red algae.

And yet there's 350 posts to this thread.

 

[USincognito]

Ha ha, thanks for the condescending attitude. Much appreciated.

Interesting way of saying, "Sorry. I was wrong and misunderstood what you posted".

 

[amariselle]

Interesting way of saying, "Sorry. I was wrong and misunderstood what you posted".

Interesting judgement on someone else'a intelligence when you don't even know them.

 

[bhsmte]

Interesting judgement on someone else'a intelligence when you don't even know them.

You don't think you can figure out certain things about people, based on what they say on this forum?