Evolution Goes (Retro)Viral

[Occams Barber]

To be honest, OB, your little childish remark to me, after I explained fallen angels, caught me by surprise.

Heretothen, I thought more highly of you than that.

But I've been telling myself that you were either just joking or maybe had a little swig of something.

A couple of years back I spent the best part of an afternoon researching opinions on the differing senses of humour between Brits, Australians and Americans. Although what I found was based on opinion rather than objective measurement the consensus was that there is a real difference.

Australians use mild insults as a matter of course - what you might call 'ribbing'. In fact, in Australian society you're probably not fully accepted until you're insulted (regularly). Australian humour also tends to be self-directed - we laugh at ourselves. We also swear a lot and rarely use courtesy titles like Mr, Mrs, Doctor, Sir etc. Bluntness and extreme informality are other characteristics.

Americans tend to be more serious and a bit formal by our standards. They seem to be less open to humour although this probably means that they have a different sense of humour. I've read some classic analyses of American vs Brit/Australian sitcoms which emphasise Americans ensuring that the central character maintains his/her dignity while the Brit/Aussie comedy will tend to portray the central character as a total loser. Aus/Brit comedy also tends to be more 'gritty' with characters who aren't particularly Hollywood pretty.

I find CF a drearily serious place and American acceptance of humour on CF to be unpredictable. I tend to hold back unless I feel someone knows me well enough to realise I'm not always serious. The comment about angels was, from my point of view, mild humour which, in my world, would pass without comment.

I assumed, without thinking, that you would see it the same way.

OB

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

For what it's worth, Christian behaviour didn't cause me to become an atheist. I've never been a Christian since I've never seen a reason to believe in gods and the supernatural generally.

Christian behaviour and values have however changed my view of Christians. Before joining CF eleven years ago I had a fairly neutral view (not bad/not good, relatively harmless) of Christians. After joining CF and seeing you all up-close I'm afraid I've lost what little respect I had - apart from a few exceptions.

I tend to judge Christians based on their behaviour rather than their theology. It may also be that I'm seeing a particularly Americanised version of Christianity due to the predominance of Americans in CF.

OB

What I could have said that the way Christians conduct themselves with each other may cause neutral people to become atheists, or atheists not to consider to become theists, but remain atheists. It still is a good reason for Christians to be more loving and respectful to one another. CF is a microcosm, or a cross section of what the Christian church is like in general, so one can judge the state of the Christian church in what they observe of the behaviour of Christians on CF.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I guess you're exempt. How lucky you must be.

In one job, before I retired I was considered an exempt employee. Exempt from having a life. Also I am exempt from being a perfect example of what a Christian should be. If I could be, then Jesus would not have had to come and die on the Cross to take the penalty for my many sins. It doesn't matter how good I think I am or how I try to be, I am just a sinner like everyone else.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

"That's kind of a big if, since you're not sure whether it's a plant or a cockroach that we're more closely related to than a chimpanzee. (and in fact, whichever one you finally decide on... it's just not true.)"

That's really not hate speech. Your position is incoherent and factually wrong. And I haven't been able to answer your point since you haven't decided which biological kingdom your point applies to.

Actually , this thread is not about me or you. It is about whether Evolution or Creation is more viable for the origin of the cosmos.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I do not know, hence I do not know what isn't so

This is why we seek to learn from those who have taken the time over a number of years to gain their PhD in their particular field of science. Those who have spent decades of their professional lives seeking to find out, are the best people to learn from. All I do is to repeat on this forum what I have learned from the experts in the field. Because knowledge is just partial, scholars have divergent views, and that is what fuels the interesting debates among them and on this forum by those who engage in respectful debates about the issues, rather than engage in hate speech in order to shoot down those they disagree with.

 

[JohnEmmett]

…

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The point is that humans do not descend from primates.

Except that humans are descended from primates, and in very biological sense, humans are primates too.

Actually , this thread is not about me or you. It is about whether Evolution or Creation is more viable for the origin of the cosmos.

Except that's not what this thread is about. The theory of evolution only deals with biological life and how it became what it is now. It is not a theory about the origin of life and definitely not about the origin of the cosmos.

 

[Occams Barber]

Actually , this thread is not about me or you. It is about whether Evolution or Creation is more viable for the origin of the cosmos.

No, this thread is about ERVs as strong evidence for evolution. (I'm the OP so I should know)

Somewhere upthread (Post #25) I mentioned to you that Creationists classically conflate the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution. You've just proven my point.

There is no scientific connection between 'evolution' and 'the origin of the cosmos' (i.e. Big Bang). They are entirely separate and independent areas of study.

OB

 

[Astrid]

I don't have to prove anything to you. Nor do I have to defend Hugh Ross. If he makes more sense to me than to do, then that is the way it is. If you think he lacks credibility, you have every right to think that. But I am not beholding to you in any way. You are not a mentor for me that I have to justify to you what views I put or where I get them from. If you are going to exert some sort of authority that makes you think I have to answer to you for my views, then that ends our discussion.

Of course you do t have to " answer to me".
What an odd idea.
You might try answering to yourself tho.

It's what I do if someone points out
I'm being insensible.
Like putting conclusion before evidence.
Or misplacing my trust

 

[Astrid]

Who are "the rest of us"? I don't care if you take me seriously or not. You are not my teacher and I am not your student, so come down from where you are at and engage in a proper discussion about young verse old earth creation without making it personal. Otherwise, I am out of your loop.

The rest of us just means everyone.
We all like to be taken seriously.

A proper discussion involves factual statements
and an ability to modify of correct ones errors.
One who can't can neither teach, learn, nor discuss.

As for loops, someone who can say
something as patently absurd as you
did but can't admit to error- gets huffy,
thinking it's personal, then gets personal,
trumps up "hate speech" etc-
Like that's proper discussion.
Definitely not in any loop that includes me.

 

[Occams Barber]

@Watchman1

Thanks for the Informative tag, but you don't get away that easily.

Firstly, @Warden_of_the_Storm picked you up on a similar issue plus your lack of understanding on primates. He also deserves recognition.

You need to understand that you are not an isolated event. Creationists drop in here regularly convinced they have all the answers only to discover that they are actually woefully underinformed or have completely misunderstood evolution, They then suddenly disappear. It's normal. @Estrid describes you all as 'hit and run'. Even the addition of a supposed expert like your Dr Ross is not unusual. There is it seems some difficulty recognising that one unqualified guru (like Ross) does not negate the thousands of qualified biologists/geneticists who've been beavering away over 160 odd years fleshing out evolution at a level of detail you cannot easily comprehend. Sure - they could all be wrong, but realistically evolution is the most challenged and verified theory in modern science.

You're welcome to come back and talk but first you need to put away the certainty so characteristic of Creationists and accept that you may be wrong.

The classic Creationist approach is to decide what is true and then look for supporting evidence. I'm suggesting you look at the evidence and then decide what is true. But first - before you even begin to look at what may or may not be true -you need to read a little to get a far better understanding of the process of evolution. You also need to understand that evolution is not about the Big Bang or abiogenesis or the existence of God.

OB

 

[Astrid]

No, this thread is about ERVs as strong evidence for evolution. (I'm the OP so I should know)

Somewhere upthread (Post #25) I mentioned to you that Creationists classically conflate the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution. You've just proven my point.

There is no scientific connection between 'evolution' and 'the origin of the cosmos' (i.e. Big Bang). They are entirely separate and independent areas of study.

OB

That's why a creationist astronomer ( with or without a job) is the one a creationist has to go to for "facts"
like that humans are not primates.

Actual researchers are reluctant to make claims if they've no data to show. Such outlandish behavioir wouldnt occur to anyone with scientific integrity.

Only a guy with no reputation to lose can supply
the " authority" and the neeced creofacts

 

[JohnEmmett]

facts … like that humans are not primates.

…

 

[AV1611VET]

I assumed, without thinking, that you would see it the same way.

In that light, my apologies.

 

[Astrid]

@Watchman1

Thanks for the Informative tag, but you don't get away that easily.

Firstly, @Warden_of_the_Storm picked you up on a similar issue plus your lack of understanding on primates. He also deserves recognition.

You need to understand that you are not an isolated event. Creationists drop in here regularly convinced they have all the answers only to discover that they are actually woefully underinformed or have completely misunderstood evolution, They then suddenly disappear. It's normal. @Estrid describes you all as 'hit and run'. Even the addition of a supposed expert like your Dr Ross is not unusual. There is it seems some difficulty recognising that one unqualified guru (like Ross) does not negate the thousands of qualified biologists/geneticists who've been beavering away over 160 odd years fleshing out evolution at a level of detail you cannot easily comprehend. Sure - they could all be wrong, but realistically evolution is the most challenged and verified theory in modern science.

You're welcome to come back and talk but first you need to put away the certainty so characteristic of Creationists and accept that you may be wrong.

The classic Creationist approach is to decide what is true and then look for supporting evidence. I'm suggesting you look at the evidence and then decide what is true. But first - before you even begin to look at what may or may not be true -you need to read a little to get a far better understanding of the process of evolution. You also need to understand that evolution is not about the Big Bang or abiogenesis or the existence of God.

OB

"Accept that you may be wrong"

That would be a first. Ive never seen a
creationist admit to being wrong about
anything.

Even the smallest item that doesn't the least negate
the argument.

The "may" or "might" be wrong about banana / cockroach/
chimp etc , pallid and poised to be retracted as it was, was as close to such an admission as I've seen.

It's a curious mindset. I've always wondered if
it's a cause or effect of belief in creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

That would be a first. Ive never seen a creationist admit to being wrong about anything.

Because you put them on IGNORE?

In fact, you call it "IG CITY."

So you must have a large population under glass.

 

[Astrid]

Dr Hugh Ross net worth nearly
$100,000,000.00

Hugh Ross (astrophysicist) net worth and salary income estimation

Check out Hugh Ross (astrophysicist)'s net worth in US Dollar Aug, 2023.

peopleai.com

 

[AV1611VET]

Dr Hugh Ross net worth nearly $100,000,000.00

Nice.

Luke 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

 

[Astrophile]

I don't care. The point is that humans do not descend from primates. The first humans, Adam and Eve were created as brand new adult human beings and did not evolve from any previous population of half human primates.

Isn't it interesting that in every thread dealing with creation verse evolution, the personal hate speech tends to emerge when people cannot find a satisfactory answer to points put forward by the opposition in a debate.

Just out of interest, how do you interpret the fossils of the australopithecines (Australopithecus afarensis, A. africanus, Paranthropus robustus, A. sediba, etc.) and the pre-sapiens members of the genus Homo (H. habilis, H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalis, etc.)?

Do you accept that the later species of Australopithecus evolved from the earlier species and that the pre-sapiens species of Homo evolved from the australopithecines, or do you think that all the species of Australopithecus and Homo were created as brand-new adult hominins?

 

[Astrophile]

Actually , this thread is not about me or you. It is about whether Evolution or Creation is more viable for the origin of the cosmos.

It might be better if you asked whether the cosmos originated by natural processes or whether it was made by a supernatural creator.