A thread on evolution

[createdtoworship]

Um, pretty much every time you issue hand waving dismissals rather than look at what people post?

You asked about "missing links" of higher taxa. I pointed you to a website that has been around for two decades that has a whole catalog of them. You handwaved it away claiming it's not peer-reviewed. I pointed out it has a list of references as long as your arm. You continue to handwave and repeat the lie that your question hasn't been answered.

Heck, even when you post stuff yourself (such as that article about supposed intelligent design of birds), you refused to engage in a discussion about it.

You've shown no indication you're here for discussion or debate. Your modus operandi has all the hallmarks of a basic internet troll.

I didn't think you could name one event I didnt' comment on.

 

[pitabread]

please post one peer review proving your point, political blogs and fake news don't count.

I pointed you to a site with dozens of peer-review references. You refused to go there.

You know what they say about leading a horse to water...

 

[pitabread]

I didn't think you could name one event I didnt' comment on.

"Comment on" and "address" are two different things. I don't count handwaving dismissals as addressing anything.

 

[pitabread]

When you think about it, when you are in that deep, you really have no choice but to deny well evidenced reality. Too painful to do otherwise.

Indeed. I couldn't imagine what it must be like to try to be a creationist in today's world. To have every branch of mainstream science contradicting one's beliefs must be pretty intense. Only thing to do is bury one's head as deep as it will go, I suppose.

 

[driewerf]

Isn't this ultimately how all creation/evolution debates go? It starts off with the Creationist claiming (or in this case having someone else claim) that evolutionists are ebil atheists and are wrong and likely going to burn in hell followed by grotesque oversimplifications of the science or outright misapprehension of the science.

The scientists jump in and say
1. Not all evolutionists are atheists
2. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis
3. Detailed discussions of what the science ACTUALLY says

This is usually responded to by endless citations of Creationist websites and their misapprehesion or misapplication of the science.

<<fast forward 175 pages of debate>>

The creationist has by now abandoned all known logical constructs and rhetorical skill leaving the evilutionists to explain how syllogisms work.

<<fast forward 150 more pages>>

Now we are at the point where we are debating the meaning of common words and how words work.

Hitler! You forgot Hitler.

 

[bhsmte]

Indeed. I couldn't imagine what it must be like to try to be a creationist in today's world. To have every branch of mainstream science contradicting one's beliefs must be pretty intense. Only thing to do is bury one's head as deep as it will go, I suppose.

Indeed, the inner turmoil is quite significant.

 

[createdtoworship]

"Comment on" and "address" are two different things. I don't count handwaving dismissals as addressing anything.

don't tell me you still don't wish to do your own homework. I can point to sites too that quote numerous peer reviews. if you want.

but it doesn't work in debate. Been there. The real proof is in the pudding. Go to google scholar, find a peer review and quote it. It should not be hard if every scientist in the world agrees with evolution should it?

 

[createdtoworship]

Indeed. I couldn't imagine what it must be like to try to be a creationist in today's world. To have every branch of mainstream science contradicting one's beliefs must be pretty intense. Only thing to do is bury one's head as deep as it will go, I suppose.

one word, nonconformist. besides your argument is a failed appeal to the populus (aka bandwagon fallacy)

 

[TBDude65]

they were citations, I can quote peer review too. But it's not good enough. Serously do your own homework for once. Every peer review I have probably took 15-30 minutes to find. So you just have to work harder. Or stop trolling.

I can take you to sites that house some of these transitional fossils here in the US. Many of them are very easy to access along state roads. Finding the fossils isn't easy because they are typically rare, but it isn't like they are stored in some secret location. If you know enough about geology, you can figure out where to go to find them.

The Catskill Formation in north-central and central Pennsylvania (where I do my research) house some of the earliest tetrapods that are transitional fossils along the vertebrate lineage. In fact, I have bone fragments from some of these animals (along with fish bone fragments) in a cabinet beside me right now.

edit to add:
In fact, I can show you all sorts of transitional forms among the brachiopods because I literally have dozens of species sitting beside me right now after having spent the better part of a week just taking photos of them. Brachs aren't as well known a group and as a consequence you don't commonly see them (or really any invertebrate) used as an example of a transitional species. Instead we pick the good vertebrate examples because people are often much more interested in those fossils

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

but again if I talk about peaches for 9 minutes and bananas for 1 minute right in the middle. then if you quote the banana part in the speech, it will be a quote mine. The point is that you cannot prove a quote out of context. you can make a rational case for it. But not even that was done. But any quote taken word for word if it is not in the same topic of peaches is automatically a quote mine, even if he was really talking about bananas. I hope that makes sense. I can change it up if it doesnt' make sense. Basically you can only allege that there is a quote out of context you cannot prove it. Nor can I prove that God did not actually mean "there is no God." I have the spirit and the spirit testifies of what the scriptures mean. But I cannot prove that to you, because the spirit is invisible. I cannot take a picture of the spirit.

What you have just written is the simple most idiotic thing ever written. You went to great detail to explain what a quote-mine is, and then you immediately say that it isn't a quote-mine.
At this point, I am 100% certain that you are just acting like this to try and make yourself feel intelligent, even though it's obvious that you have zero understanding of anything that has been said on this thread. The fact that you have repeatedly skipped from science to apologetics, which is against the rules for this forum and subforum, shows that to be plain and clear.

 

[pitabread]

but it doesn't work in debate. Been there. The real proof is in the pudding. Go to google scholar, find a peer review and quote it.

Last time I tried directly quoting from something, it was from an article you linked and you refused to then even discuss it. You know what they say, fool me once...

Regardless, there is no debate here. You asked a question and it was answered. Your refusal to go to a web site or look up references on said site is on your own shoulders. I can't nor will I do the work of trying to force-feed you scientific literature.

Go read up on the subject. And then, when you start to demonstrate you're capable of having a real discussion, maybe we can have one.

 

[pitabread]

one word, nonconformist.

To what end though? I mean, we're not talking about bucking a trend of social behavioral norms or pop culture or something. We're talking about science.

I guess people can revel in rejecting scientific thought, but I'm not sure as to the point.

For example, the Botanical Society of America put creationism's failures into a succinct statement:

"Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life." - Statement on Evolution, Botanical Society of America​

So congrats, you believe something that from a scientific POV is completely useless. Yay?

besides your argument is a failed appeal to the populus (aka bandwagon fallacy)

I think you're confused here, since I'm not using popularity to support an argument. I'm merely pointing out the fact that every branch of mainstream science contradicts creationism (YECism at least) in one regard or another.

 

[HitchSlap]

I guess if you treat peer review this way, then we can see your bias against science and logic.

Oh, I'm all for peer review. It's the dishonesty of cdesign proponentsists and their twisted interpretations of said peer review.

 

[Subduction Zone]

please post one peer review proving your point, political blogs and fake news don't count.

It is rather ridiculous to make such a demand when you don't even know how to use that phrase correctly. Or what is or what is not a peer reviewed article in the first place. Or even what or what is not evidence.

Once again, when you are ready to learn what is and what is not evidence I will gladly help you understand that topic.

 

[Shemjaza]

sorry I don't honor atheists attempts to define a religion they don't believe in. It's hypocritical.

I'm not trying to define the religion. I was raised a Christian, and one bit of morality that hasn't changed is that I don't like liars and slanders.

 

[Skreeper]

but again if I talk about peaches for 9 minutes and bananas for 1 minute right in the middle. then if you quote the banana part in the speech, it will be a quote mine. The point is that you cannot prove a quote out of context. you can make a rational case for it. But not even that was done. But any quote taken word for word if it is not in the same topic of peaches is automatically a quote mine, even if he was really talking about bananas. I hope that makes sense. I can change it up if it doesnt' make sense. Basically you can only allege that there is a quote out of context you cannot prove it. Nor can I prove that God did not actually mean "there is no God." I have the spirit and the spirit testifies of what the scriptures mean. But I cannot prove that to you, because the spirit is invisible. I cannot take a picture of the spirit.

 

[createdtoworship]

I can take you to sites that house some of these transitional fossils here in the US. Many of them are very easy to access along state roads. Finding the fossils isn't easy because they are typically rare, but it isn't like they are stored in some secret location. If you know enough about geology, you can figure out where to go to find them.

The Catskill Formation in north-central and central Pennsylvania (where I do my research) house some of the earliest tetrapods that are transitional fossils along the vertebrate lineage. In fact, I have bone fragments from some of these animals (along with fish bone fragments) in a cabinet beside me right now.

edit to add:
In fact, I can show you all sorts of transitional forms among the brachiopods because I literally have dozens of species sitting beside me right now after having spent the better part of a week just taking photos of them. Brachs aren't as well known a group and as a consequence you don't commonly see them (or really any invertebrate) used as an example of a transitional species. Instead we pick the good vertebrate examples because people are often much more interested in those fossils

pictures or scans will do, post them and address what two genus they are transitioning, thanks.

 

[createdtoworship]

What you have just written is the simple most idiotic thing ever written. You went to great detail to explain what a quote-mine is, and then you immediately say that it isn't a quote-mine.
At this point, I am 100% certain that you are just acting like this to try and make yourself feel intelligent, even though it's obvious that you have zero understanding of anything that has been said on this thread. The fact that you have repeatedly skipped from science to apologetics, which is against the rules for this forum and subforum, shows that to be plain and clear.

again say I am talking about little puppies for 9 minutes and then change topics and talk about little kitty cats right at the 4.5 minute mark, for one minute. If you quote about the kitty cats, it is a fully contextualized quote, but you cannot prove it, either way. So you have no argument here.

 

[createdtoworship]

Last time I tried directly quoting from something, it was from an article you linked and you refused to then even discuss it. You know what they say, fool me once...

Regardless, there is no debate here. You asked a question and it was answered. Your refusal to go to a web site or look up references on said site is on your own shoulders. I can't nor will I do the work of trying to force-feed you scientific literature.

Go read up on the subject. And then, when you start to demonstrate you're capable of having a real discussion, maybe we can have one.

if my question is answered, please post the post number I will promptly go back and address it, or if I can't then I will declare you victorious over my question challenge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

again say I am talking about little puppies for 9 minutes and then change topics and talk about little kitty cats right at the 4.5 minute mark, for one minute. If you quote about the kitty cats, it is a fully contextualized quote, but you cannot prove it, either way. So you have no argument here.

You still have no clue.

I would help you but you don't seem to want any help.