Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 203 of 457 (708061)
10-04-2013 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by NoNukes
10-04-2013 10:46 AM


Re: What's wrong!
Not only do you not like the definitions or species, mutations, alleles, breeds, evolution, etc. -- until I and others called you on it, you pretended that those terms had the meanings you prefer and that we were mis-defining them.
This is what creationists do. And for them, as they frequently do, to claim that they are doing science is ludicrous. They are doing precisely the opposite of science.
As to the topic, "What is wrong with people?"
They are blinded by belief and dogma such that they deny and misrepresent reality, hoping somehow to make it appear to conform to their belief and dogma.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2013 10:46 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Diomedes, posted 10-04-2013 11:07 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:12 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 225 of 457 (708106)
10-04-2013 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Faith
10-04-2013 7:35 PM


Re: Now a real summary: evolution is dead but evolutionists don't know it
How about your claim that genetic diversity decreases?
If that is the case, please explain how there is more diversity within the protists in the chart below than in all the subsequent species evolving from the protists.
3.7 billion years is a lot of time for mutations to occur and to increase genetic diversity through speciation. In fact, this is what we see.
And 3.7 billion years would have been more than sufficient time for deleterious mutations to accumulate and wipe out all life. Clearly that didn't happen.
So, in summary, you're still wrong. Even worse, you show no inclination to accept any evidence--no matter how strong and compelling--if it contradicts your belief system. That is completely anti-science, and certainly nothing to be proud of.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 7:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 310 of 457 (708420)
10-09-2013 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Percy
10-09-2013 8:32 PM


On evidence -- again
Is it evidence that convinces you or something else?
It can't be evidence.
A lot of us have posted evidence to this, and other, threads.
It has been like water off a duck's back. The evidence has either been denied, obfuscated, misrepresented, misunderstood, or, if those failed, simply ignored.
It doesn't matter how well-settled within science that evidence might be, if it is inconvenient to a creationist's beliefs it receives the above treatment. But any idea that pops into a creationist's head that supports those beliefs is accepted without any evidence--and usually in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary!
The whole exercise boils down to this: all creationists need to do is find any "what-if" that might just barely allow them to question established science in their own minds, and that's enough to reinforce their beliefs. That's enough to negate all of mainstream science. This is a pattern that we have seen over and over.
So, no. It can't be evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Percy, posted 10-09-2013 8:32 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 396 of 457 (708820)
10-14-2013 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by NoNukes
10-14-2013 10:25 PM


Re: Contribution of Drift
NoNukes writes:
Faith writes:
ound myself pondering genetic drift. I've had only a vague idea about drift...
Sigh.
An excellent example of creation "science" -- willing to believe anything that even remotely supports the bible, but only a "vague idea" about the evidence to the contrary.
And a certainty that anything that contradicts the bible is wrong.
Coupled with an unwillingness to even examine that evidence that the bible is wrong.
Along with a fingers-in-the-ears "I can't hear you" approach to that evidence.
And a very mistaken belief that creation "science" has some relationship to real science, when in reality they are diametrically opposed.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by NoNukes, posted 10-14-2013 10:25 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by Faith, posted 10-14-2013 11:41 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 398 of 457 (708822)
10-14-2013 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by Faith
10-14-2013 11:41 PM


Re: Contribution of Drift
Coyote writes:
An excellent example of creation "science" -- willing to believe anything that even remotely supports the bible, but only a "vague idea" about the evidence to the contrary.
And a certainty that anything that contradicts the bible is wrong.
Coupled with an unwillingness to even examine that evidence that the bible is wrong.
Along with a fingers-in-the-ears "I can't hear you" approach to that evidence.
And a very mistaken belief that creation "science" has some relationship to real science, when in reality they are diametrically opposed.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Faith writes:
Considering that drift hadn't come up until now, what's the problem with my admitting I had a problem getting a clear idea of it?
Show me where I was wrong?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Faith, posted 10-14-2013 11:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 12:00 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 400 of 457 (708824)
10-15-2013 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 399 by Faith
10-15-2013 12:00 AM


Re: Contribution of Drift
And I've been answer the "evidence," not ignoring it. Either answering it or showing that it supports MY point of view.
Sorry to have to tell you this, but anyone who is a non-creationist can see that you've failed miserably.
You just make up things to suit your beliefs, and cherry pick anything you can from the scientific literature, even when the articles you cite contradict what you claim!
You may be adept at religious apologetics, but you are not so good at science.
And you might just heed the words of Saint Augustine, from The Literal Meaning of Genesis, below:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [1 Timothy 1.7]
Emphasis added. (He got your number, and he was writing 1600 years ago!)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 12:00 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 12:44 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 412 of 457 (708868)
10-15-2013 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by Faith
10-15-2013 5:42 PM


Re: Contribution of Drift
Perhaps there's another explanation for the phenomenon, however, that continues to allow that I AM working from evidence although within a different explanatory context. From that point of view it's the foreign creationist explanatory context that uses the evidence differently that eventually alienates evolutionists, rather than any lack of evidence.
No. You run all evidence through a filter.
If it confirms your religious beliefs you accept it uncritically, along with wishful thinking, speculation, and just outright nonsense.
If it contradicts your religious beliefs you reject it no matter how solidly documented.
That is the characteristic of creation "science" not real science. It is pure religious apologetics no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise, and try to delude your audiences.
But the saddest part of all of this is that you have to delude yourself first of all.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 5:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 6:38 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 419 of 457 (708882)
10-15-2013 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 418 by Faith
10-15-2013 10:23 PM


Reasons why this thread is due for Summary
However, haven't there been some who have studied it extensively and devoted their lives to the science who have come to see it as false, even written books against it but do NOT get fame and fortune?Or if they do they don't get it from the scientific community, which remains untouched by their new insights.
Only when they "get religion" do they turn away from scientific evidence and rely on woo. You're a poster boy for this. Anyone who follows the evidence accepts the theory of evolution.
To my mind this goes to demonstrate that the whole thing is far from science and really just a matter of belief and opinion, something that can't be definitively pinned down because it's all unproven speculation etc. If someone does see through it there is no way for them to actually prove their case either. It's always a matter of hoping to be persuasive about some vague plausibilities. That's the case on both sides of the debate in the end.
False. Utterly false. You demonstrate the point of this thread every time you post.
But just as a test, can you name one, just one, scientific theory that has been proved?
...there is a natural genetic barrier to macroevolution.
So you've claimed on many occasions. Until you can show somebody with a big "STOP" sign where microevolution ends and macroevolution begins, you've got nothing but religious belief. That's pretty thin gruel when you get to the evidence part of things.
...I believe I've shown that macroevolution is impossible
What you believe and reality aren't even on speaking terms. You couldn't see reality with the Hubble Telescope!
I've asked for this thread to go to Summary mode because you have shown yourself utterly incapable of learning, no matter the evidence that is provided. In that, you are the poster boy for "WTF is wrong with people," which is the subject of this thread.
And, you have shown St. Augustine was right some 1,600 years ago. I think he'd be disgusted with you.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 10:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 10:47 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 421 of 457 (708884)
10-15-2013 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by Faith
10-15-2013 10:47 PM


Re: Reasons why this thread is due for Summary
Wrong. You shouldn't try to play at science. You suck at it.
A fact or an observation is very much different from a theory.
A theory explains facts!
And gravity as a theory is not as well documented as is evolution as a theory.
Find the list of definitions I posted a while back and try, really try, to focus for just a few minutes.
But I know you won't because you might be in danger of learning something...

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 10:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 426 of 457 (708892)
10-16-2013 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by frako
10-16-2013 12:34 AM


Re: Reasons why this thread is due for Summary
Its ok i understand religion is a powerful tool that can make you believe or deny anything its not your fault
But it is!
The human mind is the most powerful and wonderful thing we have, and it is sad to see one wasted on myth, nonsense, and delusion.
To deny reality in the face of overwhelming evidence is to waste and deny that wonderful mind. I can't imagine any deity that would be impressed by that.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by frako, posted 10-16-2013 12:34 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by frako, posted 10-16-2013 8:27 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 432 by Phat, posted 10-16-2013 10:21 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 436 of 457 (708915)
10-16-2013 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 435 by Phat
10-16-2013 10:55 AM


Re: A partial summary.
Both may be honest yet both may arrive at differing conclusions.
When scientists have different conclusions they usually turn to the evidence to determine which conclusion is correct.
When believers have different conclusions you often get a schism. That is why there are so many different religions, denominations, sects, etc. today.
Belief is often not subject to evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by Phat, posted 10-16-2013 10:55 AM Phat has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 457 of 457 (713637)
12-14-2013 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 456 by shalamabobbi
12-14-2013 11:07 PM


Re: Contribution of Drift
Here's another good one. In the creationist artlcle, "The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’—on evolutionists’ terms," by John Woodmorappe, we find the following:
The relevant evidence clearly shows that Homo sapiens sensu lato is a separate and distinct entity from the other hominids. No overall evolutionary progression is to be found. Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors. As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man—all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.
What if this wonderful bit of creationist science was actually correct? It would have the following implications, most of which run contrary to what creationists generally claim:
The change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, to these four species of fossil man took place since the Babel incident, which is usually placed after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 years ago. The change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now they have not only proposed such a change themselves, but see it several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!
http://blog.darwincentral.org/...-at-creation-science-part-i

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by shalamabobbi, posted 12-14-2013 11:07 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024