Evolution's Brick Wall

[inquiring mind]

Okay, let's be serious. You've never read a single scientific paper on evolution, have you? Much less written one, of course. You've never reconstructed a phylogeny, you've never sequenced a genome, you've never done a morphological analysis of a fossil. In fact, you couldn't do any of those things if your life depended on it, nor could you understand a scientific description of any of them. You have not got the faintest idea in the world what the actual science of evolutionary biology consists of . . . and yet you somehow think, based on your complete and total lack of knowledge about the subject, that you're in a position to tell working scientists that what they do isn't really science. How does that not strike you as just a teeny bit arrogant and, you know, dumb?

Yeah, you try, but you guys are really, really bad at it.

Exactly what is this evidence that doesn't stand up to scrutiny? How have you scrutinized it?

Please provide a list of your publications in biology.

Oh, I almost forgot, you're the one who wants this to be an 'evolution only' sub-forum... no hoops for you either.

 

[inquiring mind]

Is this what we should expect from CF Ambassadors? Insults and condescension?

Now is that 'leading' or what?

 

[pitabread]

If no more than 2 are allowed, how do you explain the 18?

Magic, duh.

 

[sfs]

Oh, I almost forgot, you're the one who wants this to be an 'evolution only' sub-forum...

This is some fictional story you made up and then almost forgot? Or are you just typing random things at this point?

In any case, I'd still like you to tell us what evidence for evolution you've scrutinized, and what your accomplishments are in biology that put you in a position to tell biologists what counts as science.

 

[pitabread]

Yeah, you try, but you guys are really, really bad at it.

This is why we need more creationists like Todd Wood. Creationists who are at least willing to honestly acknowledge what they are up against instead of just engaging in denial and ignorance.

 

[Belk]

Now is that 'leading' or what?

No, it is a question of your actions in response to others here and your status as an ambassador.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, it is a question of your actions in response to others here and your status as an ambassador.

More 'leading'.

 

[inquiring mind]

This is some fictional story you made up and then almost forgot? Or are you just typing random things at this point?

Post 989

In any case, I'd still like you to tell us what evidence for evolution you've scrutinized, and what your accomplishments are in biology that put you in a position to tell biologists what counts as science.

Are you kidding, I've disclosed all I'm going to to you guys. Besides you're the ones supposedly qualified to answer questions without getting all torn up about it.

 

[sfs]

Post 989

A post in which I say nothing like what you suggested.

Are you kidding, I've disclosed all I'm going to to you guys.

No, I'm not kidding. You've made claims that you haven't backed up and accused scientists of failing at their jobs without evidence. I honestly find it surprising that so many creationists think this sort of behavior is okay. It's a serious question that I'm asking: do you really think it's okay to make public accusations without providing any evidence?

Besides you're the ones supposedly qualified to answer questions without getting all torn up about it.

Um, what? If you were to ask any questions about my field, I'd be happy to try to answer them. But you're not asking questions -- you're telling me that I'm a fraud as a scientist.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ok, time to set things straight.

Name one aspect of observable evolution that doesn't require faith?

 

[inquiring mind]

A post in which I say nothing like what you suggested.

OK, I stand corrected, it looked like it was leaning that way to me.

It's a serious question that I'm asking: do you really think it's okay to make public accusations without providing any evidence?

No, and I would certainly not do anything like that intentionally.

Um, what? If you were to ask any questions about my field, I'd be happy to try to answer them. But you're not asking questions -- you're telling me that I'm a fraud as a scientist.

Just to be clear, those are your words, not mine. I would not say something like that intentionally either.

 

[Job 33:6]

Not if your not going to read them, look up HAR 1f

Why do you assume that i wont read your sources? Why dont you show me them, and then ill reply with my thoughts.

I can look things up, but if you cant show me precisely what your thoughts are, then im not going to be able to judge your considerations.

 

[Job 33:6]

Id say they are apes

I'd say they are apes and ancestors of humans.

 

[Job 33:6]

They are not humans, they are apes. The hominid line doesn't start until 2 mya when the cranial capacity doubles over night without explanation.

2 million years is not overnight. It's 2 million years.

And hominid fossils still go back millions of years earlier than that.

 

[Job 33:6]

@mark kennedy

As far as I can tell, you seem to be suggesting that 18 mutations could not have occurred over the course of roughly 7 million years. And the fact that you seem considerably shy about posting your sources, leads me to believe that you either dont have sources and are just going off of your own gut feeling, or perhaps your sources are from some unknown young earth creationists websites.

This is about all i can gather.

 

[doubtingmerle]

do you think that a self replicating molecule can evolve into a robot?

As an online discussion in this forum grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving robot penguins approaches 1.

 

[Job 33:6]

As an online discussion in this forum grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving robot penguins approaches 1.

hahaha, yes!

 

[doubtingmerle]

Name one aspect of observable evolution that doesn't require faith?

The evidence.

 

[Belk]

Ok, time to set things straight.

Name one aspect of observable evolution that doesn't require faith?

Nothing that is observable requires faith.

 

[pitabread]

Name one aspect of observable evolution that doesn't require faith?

What definition of faith are you using in this context?