Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

inquiring mind said:

You're kidding, right?

Click to expand...

No, not at all. I'm talking about in the scientific community though, not religious circles... As far as science is concerned, there is literally only one explanation for the diversity of life on the planet - and that is Evolution.

pitabread said:

I asked you repeatedly if you understood and/or accepted it and your responses were anything but affirmative. If I misunderstood I apologize, but it's really difficult to get a handle on what you believe when you don't give a straight answer.

And my "stalling" was nothing of the sort. I was trying to figure out exactly where your objections lie as it doesn't appear specific to evolution and seems more likely related to science in general.

Because if you do have objections to the scientific method, then that is a discussion unto itself. Evolution is irrelevant.

(And for the record, it is not "my" scientific method. It's THE scientific method, the thing which underpins the very nature of scientific inquiry )

Click to expand...

Of course I'm the problem, never you all.

Repeatedly?

A few days ago you asked me for the first time that I know of, if I would go with your scientific method, and I answered very clearly and gave my reasoning, very reasonable response under the circumstances.

I think the major problem was you all tend to lie when you get cornered, just as you have here, so I said we'd just have to see how it goes, a simple and fair solution, and there was nor "repeatedly" anything (anyone who wishes can verify that, it'a ll here in black and white).

You all caused that problem, not me, and now you whine because you can't get absolute cooperation (and likely absolute cooperation to a scientific method that says they need prove nothing, because science doesn't do that.) and get me to agree to doing things your way, the so-called proper way? Well, I've seen your "properer" way, when it falls apart, so do those that present it, then their defense becomes lie/excuse based, so the best I can possibly do for you is see how it goes....a completely reasonable stance.

Honestly, either evolution is a huge crock like I think it is, or they picked the worse possible representatives.....

Kenny'sID said:

Repeatedly?

Click to expand...

I initially asked you this:


Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

Your response to that post completely ignored those questions, so I asked again:


Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

You response consisted of "I understand proof..", and "Do I accept scientific method? And you say I"M vague? I've seen your end of this make all kinds of bogus/ridiculous claims citing that's how science works, so since I've even been flat out lied to on what is what at times, on that, and rightfully so, we'll just have to see."

Given how evasive you are being in your responses suggests to me that there is a fundamental lack of understanding and/or acceptance of the scientific method as a means for acquisition of knowledge.

And if you don't understand and/or don't accept it, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Just be upfront about it. There's no reason for any games.

I think the major problem was you all tend to lie when you get cornered, just as you have here, so I said we'd just have to see how it goes, a simple and fair solution, and there was nor "repeatedly" anything (anyone who wishes can verify that, it'a ll here in black and white).

Click to expand...

There is no lie and indeed you can see by the above quotes that I did in fact ask you the same questions more than once, and the responses I received were evasive and non-committal.

You all caused that problem, not me, and now you whine because you can't get absolute cooperation (and likely absolute cooperation to a scientific method that says they need prove nothing, because science doesn't do that.) and get me to agree to doing things your way, the so-called proper way? Well, I've seen your "properer" way, when it falls apart, so do those that present it, then their defense becomes lie/excuse based, so the best I can possibly do for you is see how it goes....a completely reasonable stance.

Click to expand...

There is no "problem" here. Just the question of whether or not you have a fundamental disagreement with how science works. And the answers you keep presenting seems to suggest that yes, you do have a disagreement with it. (Especially given you don't even agree on basic terminology.)

If you want to demonstrate otherwise then you can start by explaining how you think the scientific method works and whether or not you agree with how it works. But if your response is going to more defensive rambling, then I already have my answer.

The dog tumor is harmless but is is very contagious

Kenny you’re asking for evidence in an online forum from mostly amateurs . You CLAIMED to be scientifically literate but those of us who are don’t see that . We see someone who’s read creationist pseudoscience papers and thinks he understands science because he understood the pseudoscience paper.

pitabread said:

I initially asked you this:

"How do you feel about the scientific method itself? What is your understanding of the scientific method and the philosophical basis behind using the scientific method for knowledge acquisition?"​

Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

Your response to that post completely ignored those questions, so asked again:

"Do you feel you understand the scientific method? (e.g. What is your understanding of it)
Do you accept the scientific method as a valid methodology for learning about the universe?"​

Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

You response consisted of "I understand proof..", and "Do I accept scientific method? And you say I"M vague? I've seen your end of this make all kinds of bogus/ridiculous claims citing that's how science works, so since I've even been flat out lied to on what is what at times, on that, and rightfully so, we'll just have to see."

Given how evasive you are being in your responses suggests to me that there is a fundamental lack of understanding and/or acceptance of the scientific method as a means for acquisition of knowledge.

And if you don't understand and/or don't accept it, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Just be upfront about it. There's no reason for any games.



There is no lie and indeed you can see by the above quotes that I did in fact ask you the same questions more than once, and the responses I received were evasive and non-committal.



There is no "problem" here. Just the question of whether or not you have a fundamental disagreement with how science works. And the answers you keep presenting seems to suggest that yes, you do have a disagreement with it.

If you want to demonstrate otherwise then you can start by explaining how you think the scientific method works and whether or not you agree with how it works. But if your response is going to more defensive rambling, then I already have my answer.

Click to expand...

I ignore a lot of posts once it's clear a user is stalling,yammering on about nothing, of expecting the ridiculous.

Lets take this question as a for instance, the one that you thought was going "really put me in my place". Let's take it apart to see why I ignored it. Just know I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post because dealing with this nonsense it time consuming enough.

I have not looked into the scientific method, and no one in their right mind should expect me to have. I've said time an time again how I don't look into what I don't care about. It's like flat earth, something I'm more likely to go for than evolution, yet I don't bother looking into it. Yet your asking me about it. As I said, stop stalling and use your scientific method and we'll see how it goes. I seriously doubt it's rocket science. I'm not going to lock myself into some method that may reflect some of the ridiculous claims you all have made here thus far, such as "science proves nothing" and "theory" is not the theory in the dictionary, and that's just to name a few. So I said lets see how it goes and when something like that comes up you'll know why I don't go with the scientific method. Your asking me to agree to something you know I'm not clear on before hand is a poorly set trap that supposedly traps me into excepting certain claims without question because I agreed to accept your scientific method.

If that was not the case, why didn't you just put the method on the table and ask me if I accept it? something I'm going to ask you to do right now in order to put this one to rest, and since it seems so important to you.

Tell us what this scientific method is, and if you know perfectly well there are parts that you/anyone wouldn't understand without further explanation, further explain. That way we can move on and see if I really do "have a disagreement" and if or not it's justified.

And yes, you have to put it here. I want to be sure you understand it, and for others to see it as well. And please cite the sources, and how these people are funded if possible. As little confusion as possible from the get go.

Brightmoon said:

You CLAIMED to be scientifically literate but those of us who are don’t see that .

Click to expand...

Where?

And what exactly do you mean by that? One can go just about anywhere they want with such a vague comment. But once again, where did I say I was scientifically literate? And are you? Can you prove that?

PsychoSarah said:

I also went through with you why the Precambrian environment wouldn't allow for rabbits to develop even if an active force was utilizing artificial selection to try to cause it to happen, due to atmospheric conditions. Even you should know that an organism that breathes oxygen shouldn't arise in an environment with very little oxygen. How could this not be a "problem for evolution"? Nothing remotely close to a rabbit in terms of physiology could survive, much less reproduce.

Click to expand...

1) are you saying that a rabbit cant adapt to its different environment if such a rabbit exist at the Precambrian? (in other words: are you dont believe in evolution?).

2) what about the possibility of contamination? we can claim that the fossil (or the layer around the fossil ) get a contamination so its age is actually a result of a bad dating.

pitabread said:

As I said, you need to re-visit your understanding of evolution.

Click to expand...

so you have no real answer. why im not surprised...

Brightmoon said:

There is a big difference between looking like a rabbit and being one. Flying fish is the laymen’s name for more than one organism. That’s why scientists use scientific names

Click to expand...

so lets talk about numbers. do you agree that a creature that is about 70% similar to a rabbit can evolve by convergent evolution?

Shemjaza said:

Yes, that lie.

Scientists have many animals that lived in close proximity that they don't just assume were related and super rapidly evolved.

We even had a discussion about Dogs and Tasmanian Wolves that you made some irrelevant comments about.



The difference is that life changes in small amounts all the time. You have accepted that small steps do happen, and the examples of very similar structures to different stages or sections of the flagellum show that the more complicated structure could hypothetically be produced from the merging of other stages. So it isn't "Irreducible".




You are radically dishonest. You just cropped out my response that using "robot" for organic structures is a bad idea. And in particular using for breeding evolving organisms.

What I said was:


Enough with the word games and logical nonsense about robots and designs. Make an actual point.

Click to expand...

you know what? lets focus in a single claim before we will go on. in such a way it will be easy to test any claim in more details. so lets start with the robot issue. if i will made a robot that made from organic components. you will consider it to be a robot or not in this case?

xianghua said:

so lets talk about numbers. do you agree that a creature that is about 70% similar to a rabbit can evolve by convergent evolution?

Click to expand...

Why not refer to something that existed as very different organisms that were excellent examples of convergent evolution - say the Thylacine and Wolf? or Hedgehog, Porcupine and Echidna?

xianghua said:

so you have no real answer. why im not surprised...

Click to expand...

Because what you are suggesting is fundamentally absurd.

Perhaps you could explain how it would be possible to compress then entirety of 4+ billion years worth of evolutionary development of biological organisms down to only 100-200 million years AND somehow result in the exact same biodiversity, biogeography and paleontological record as what we have now. And especially given that what we know about the Earth's prior climate and that different life evolved at different times in response to different environmental pressures.

(In all honesty, I would strongly suggest working on a better understanding of evolution. If you really do think it's possible to completely change environmental conditions under which things evolve and still get the exact same outcomes, then you really don't understand how it works. There are a couple of free, University-level online courses that would help including this one from Duke and this other one from Yale. It would probably benefit you a lot for these discussions.)

inquiring mind said:

Your question brings up a question that has always puzzled me in regard to evolution from origin. I don't know how cells or organisms grow or function, but how does any living life form survive its particular infancy stage, one of some duration period anyway, without a matured parent?

Click to expand...

.......what

Kenny'sID said:

Where?

And what exactly do you mean by that? One can go just about anywhere they want with such a vague comment. But once again, where did I say I was scientifically literate? And are you? Can you prove that?

Click to expand...

I’ve got a biology degree and I’ve taken college level geology classes . You seem to think that creationist literature is telling you accurate info . Most of it is fantasy with a little Orwellian newspeak and some scientific terminology added for show . Some one who is scientifically literate would be able to tell that. And I mean mostly at a high school level in biology chemistry physics and earth science

xianghua said:

you know what? lets focus in a single claim before we will go on. in such a way it will be easy to test any claim in more details. so lets start with the robot issue. if i will made a robot that made from organic components. you will consider it to be a robot or not in this case?

Click to expand...

As I said twice before. No.

It's a bad term that confuses the issue. Is it designed and constructed, sure, but it isn't a robot.

When you use the term robot I don't really have any idea what you are talking about and how it was built or designed, that makes it bad for any kind of discussion.

Brightmoon said:

I’ve got a biology degree and I’ve taken college level geology classes . You seem to think that creationist literature is telling you accurate info . Most of it is fantasy with a little Orwellian newspeak and some scientific terminology added for show . Some one who is scientifically literate would be able to tell that. And I mean mostly at a high school level in biology chemistry physics and earth science

Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question...where did I claim what you said I did? It was an important question for my continuing effort to prove Character of evolution proponents. Things like what will they say/do to make their points, are they honest/truthful, and so on.

And for those with a degree, I'll try to be more clear... did I say that or did I not, if so, please show me?

Because you assume I even read creation literature other than the Bible, is another thing that's starting to give me the idea a degree is the opposite of what I once thought. Use a little common sense along with that and don't assume. Of course if you think the bible is inaccurate, that would be your problem, don't try to convince me it's mine.

It obvious that you read creationist literature because you use their bizarre terminology

pitabread said:

Perhaps you could explain how it would be possible to compress then entirety of 4+ billion years worth of evolutionary development of biological organisms down to only 100-200 million years

Click to expand...

do you agree that according to evolution we can get a multi-cellular creature from a single cell onein about 200-300 my?

xianghua said:

do you agree that according to evolution we can get a multi-cellular creature from a single cell onein about 200-300 my?

Click to expand...

That's not what I asked. Let's recap, shall we?

I stated that in order to falsify biological evolution as an explanation for life's history on this planet (and if life were independently created at the same time), I would expect to see all of life's history including contemporary species showing up at the same time in the fossil record. And that the fossil record should not show any historical patterns that we currently observe.

You claimed this wouldn't be an issue and we could still claim everything evolved.

Thus, I am asking you to explain (not ask questions, but explain) how this would be possible given our contemporary understanding of how biological evolution works and in the context of the changing environmental conditions that the planet has undergone.

Now can you explain this?