Creationist inconsistency when inferring relatedness

HI Andrew, I hope the new year finds you well. It's called intellectual curiosity. I agree. Some truths are impossible to know in practice. It may be that there are truths that it is impossible to know in principle. Either way, that is precisely the point of the scientific method. It allows us to construct the most reliable theories possible in a world that is is full of uncertainties. That's an odd way of putting it. Why should any scientist seek permission to study nature? And whose permission ought they ask? Funnily enough, this is a criticism frequently levelled at creationism.As it happens, the reason you don't need to believe in a moon made of cheese is because you have other evidence available. Not all explanations are equal. Some have better evidence than others. Whether you personally believe in the Theory of Evolution or not doesn't change the fact that there is evidence in favour of that theory. That makes it preferable to unevidenced "moon-is-made-of-cheese" type hypotheses.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

It has already been pointed out to you that this is untrue.What I find truly disappointing about this attitude - and indeed that of many creationists - is the total lack of intellectual curiosity. Do you really want us to just throw up our hands and give up? To regard all inferences about the past as taboo? That strikes me as rather tragic.The purpose of science is to increase the sum of human knowledge. We're not going to achieve that by being defeatist. Humans do scratch their bottoms and eat bananas. On occasion, they have been known to swing in trees. Personally, I can't see what's supposed to be so wrong about any of those activities.Chimps don't eat bananas in the wild, since there are no bananas in the forests of central Africa. You might be better off getting your knowledge of biology from biologists, rather than cartoon clichs. Really? How so?Mutate and Survive

Well don't then. Because what you're doing here comes across that way. The Crusaders justified their actions by reference to their faith. The point is that any philosophy can be abused, especially by those who do not understand it. The attitude you've been displaying in your recent posts is not scepticism. Doubting proven facts is not scepticism, it's just juvenile. So what? Are we supposed to only believe what we find pleasant? I don't find the idea that smoking causes lung cancer pleasant; shall I be "sceptical" about that? Given the preponderance of evidence for evolution, it is absolutely necessary. No. But you are kind of wasting your time.A better use of that time might be to simply learn more about evolution, because, no offence, but you don't come across as having a great command of the subject.Mutate and Survive

Learning. Knowledge. Understanding. Curiosity. Intellectual stimulation. That sort of thing.Of course, you may prefer pig ignorance, but don't expect me to join you in the sty. Excuse me, but are you the Pope by any chance? Only you seem to think that you are in some way infallible.Meanwhile, for those of us who are not infallible, the possibility exists that we will make mistakes. The scientific method exists for that very reason. It's how we minimise mistakes. It's how we build confidence in our conclusions. It's how we avoid errors in the first instance and correct them where they occur.Would you prefer that we refuse to correct our errors? Or, given that we are fallible, would you prefer that we refuse to engage in any sort of scientific enquiry at all, lest some error be made.These are our choices; either acknowledge that we are prone to err and proceed in honest enquiry, or simply give up and wallow in ignorance. If you would truly prefer the latter, I pity you. Only an fool would view scientific conclusions as dogma that must be believed without fail. This is not how I view science. It is not how scientists view their conclusions. Science does not deal in holy writ.I think you might benefit from reading up a little on how real scientists, in the real world - as opposed to the imaginary straw-man versions that live in your head - view the scientific method and the conclusions that we derive from scientific enquiry. In particular, you might be interested to know that scientists emphasise that conclusions must be regarded as tentative, allowing for the possibility of further evidence coming to light.The fact that science is deliberately constructed to allow for new evidence and new conclusions is a strength, not a weakness. Please list all of the specific, concrete ways in which being an evolution naysayer has enhanced your life. It is not important. Let us be quite clear - you are not important. You and I are not important, just anonymous voices on the internet. You can doubt evolution as much or as little as you like and precisely nobody is going to give the tiniest sliver of a shit. You can believe whatever you like. If you chose too spend your days waffling half-understood piffle about a theory that you clearly do not understand that is your right. Go right ahead. Knock yourself out.Just don't expect to voice such ill-informed rubbish on a forum such as this without opposition and, especially, don't expect anyone else to take you seriously enough to stifle their own curiosity about the past, because that, my ignorance-embracing friend, is never going to happen.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

'Fraid not mate. The most you're likely to elicit from me is mild irritation. Fortunately, you're funny, so that works out even.I've seen all of this before. Nothing you've said is in the least bit original. You're simply the latest in a long line of science deniers. There is no ad hominem in my post. Not every insult is an ad hominem. That is obviously something else you don't know the meaning of. I'll add it to the list. Embracing ignorance does not replace science. In discussion with others, yes. I'm still trying to get you to expand upon your unwillingness to accept the conclusions of science in general. Sadly, every time I post, you only respond to a single line, usually the one with the least substance.In my first message I asked why any scientist should seek permission to study nature. You declined to reply.In my second message I asked if you would prefer to give up upon scientific knowledge. You declined to reply.In my last message, I asked how denying evolution has enhanced your life. You declined to reply.Now you complain that I do not debate in good faith. Perhaps if you responded to what was said to you your hypocrisy would be less evident.I am content with what others have said on the subjects of phylogeny and pseudogenes. I am more interested in getting an answer out of you regarding the more general question of what can be known by means of scientific enquiry. So, again; When you can be bothered to respond to what I say, then you can chide me for poor debating form. Until then, I'm still waiting for my answers.Mutate and Survive