"A religion who thinks people are wrong for not believing as
they do. Shocking!!!"
***Well I'll be; the pot calling the kettle black. Evolutionists on
this board attack those who see evolution as a fairy tale. A
ridiculous tale of a frog turning into a prince.
Again you interject your lies about evolution in a "reply" to a message (Taq,
Message 63)
which made no mention of evolution!
And we are not "attacking" you for being so willfully stupid that you have no clue whatsoever about anything to do with evolution (all you "know" are the flood of lies that your religion of lies has told you), but rather because you are so zealous in spreading those lies
despite the repeated refutation of those lies. Refutations that you just run away from and then lie that they don't exist. Indeed, your lies have been exposed to you so many times that
your repeating of your lies constitutes DELIBERATE LYING.
So you are not being "attacked" for being so abysmally stupid, but rather because you are such an insufferable lying piece-of-shit asshole.
You falsely accuse Taq of "the pot calling the kettle black",
when you yourself are committing the sin of "the pot calling the SILVERWARE black." Meaning that you are claiming a false equivalence, saying that your opponent is just as bad as you are,
when you are instead LYING OUT OF YOUR ASS about your opponent.
You are
fractally wrong:
quote:
Fractal wrongness -- You are wrong at every conceivable level -- ie, zoom out for the whole picture and you're wrong, then zoom in to any part down into the finest details and you are wrong there too.
Now yet again I will refute your same old stupid lies. Not for your benefit, since you will never even bother to read them (your fucking stupid POS phone "is too small to read anything"), but rather for the benefit of everybody who will read these messages, so that they will know how stupid your lies are.
Before I begin, the basis of Candle3's lies is his willful ignorance which he works hard to maintain, hence his determined resistance to learning anything. He has no idea what evolution is nor how it works, but rather he has this made-up misrepresentation that has nothing to do with evolution despite him falsely calling it "evolution". Ask him what he thinks evolution is or how it works and he cannot answer because he doesn't know. Ask him why "evolution" (ie, his misunderstanding of it) would conflict with God and he cannot answer because he doesn't know. He doesn't know anything
except for the lies that creationists have taught him through his church. IOW, he has been fed nothing but lies so he passes those lies forward. He has been fed nothing but bullshit so now
he is become bullshit, the spewer of lies;
Man ist was man ißt (German: "You are what you eat.")
*No fossils that support their belief (faith).
He knows nothing about the fossil record.
The fossil record is very extensive, filling entire sections of university libraries with journals filled with detailed descriptions. I have talked with ex-creationists whose deconversion from creationism started with their having stumbled into one of those sections.
Candle3's argument is simply a statement of his own ignorance.
*No known way to explain the origin of matter. They cannot
explain it by relying on God, or a god, because they would then
have to concede that God could have created all life (forms).
The origin of matter has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. You may as well refute football by complaining that it fails to explain the origin of matter.
Evolution is about the operation and development of
life, not about the origin of matter or the universe, etc.
Other disciplines cover those questions.
Candle3 doesn't know what evolution is and so again bears witness to his own ignorance.
Also, a god having created life would pose no problem for evolution, just as evolution poses no problem with an actual creator. Regardless of how life started,
once it came into existence it started to evolve. Evolution is the natural consequences of life doing what life does and that would be true
completely independent on how life originated.
Candle3 is just too willfully stupid to realize or accept that.
*No known way for life to have come from non-life (faith).
We have made much progress in that research. Each of the long sequence of events have been found occur naturally and to do so very readily. Candle3 is yet again just bearing witness to his own ignorance.
Part of his problem is that he has a very distorted false notion (not even the faintest hint of the possibility of an idea) of what life-from-nonlife would entail; basically he couldn't recognize it if it came up and bit him on a very sensitive part of his body.
*No thorough concept of how one species evolved into
other species (faith).
Candle3 has no concept, but evolution has studied the question thoroughly.
Indeed, Candle3 has a completely false notion as indicated by his repeated use of the extremely stupid creationist canard of "evolution says a dog gave birth to kittens." Not only does that have nothing to do with evolution, but if such a thing were to happen then that would actually disprove evolution ... and biology. If
that is an example of what he demands must be demonstrated as how a new species evolves, then of course he will never see it.
His willful stupidity does not disprove evolution.
*Evolutionists believe that that all diversity on earth is the
result of mutations and natural selection. Because of their
deep faith in evolution they fail to u/s that mutations are a
result of loss of information, not gain. This would be similar
to a gambler losing all his money but claiming to have won.
Candle3 knows nothing about mutations,
let alone the different kinds of mutation and what they do. Plus he depends on creationist misunderstanding and lies about information theory, which they use to confuse and deceive their audiences.
First, the defintions of "mutation" are broad and include kinds of mutation that play absolutely no part in evolution: The only mutations that play any role in evolution must be both
genetic and
inheritable. So a physical mutation caused by external factors (environmental mutagens) during development would not apply since the genome wasn't affected, rather it was the expression of its genes that got thrown out of whack. A genetic mutation in a body cell (somatic) would not be heritable and hence would play no role in evolution, but rather might cause a cancer.
Only a genetic mutation in a germline cell (eg, spermazoon, ovum) would result in a germline mutation that could be inherited by the next generation and could play any kind of role in evolution.
Basic high-school biology. Which nonetheless flies way over Candle3's head.
Here's a reference to Wikipedia on
Classification of types of mutations. For example, in a duplication mutation, an extra copy of a gene is created,
which increases the amount of information in the genome. If a base substitution occurs, then that creates a new animo acid sequence
which would also add more information. Most base substitutions are neutral, changing nothing (or almost nothing) in the gene's expression (at least half the amino acids in a protein are purely structural such that their locus could be filled by any amino acid), but some can change the protein.
BTW, a deliterious mutation that negatively affects the organism's ability to survive will be weeded out
by that organism not surviving to produce offspring. Thus, a bad mutation would not be expected to make it to the second generation.
So mutations can indeed increase information. Candle3 is just being a willful idiot.
*They also fail to u/s that natural selection can only select
from what is available. NS cannot select from a gene pool
and DNA that is not in it's makeup.
Here he contradicts himself. In the previous lie he was slightly correct about natural selection's role working with increasing genetic variation, but here he turns around and claims that natural selection must work alone. That's the problem with lying about everything: it becomes impossible to keep your stories straight.
Also, he displays his ignorance of basic genetics from high school biology: the
difference between genotypes and phenotypes and how the genotype is expressed in the phenotype and it is the phenotype that natural selection acts upon.
How has Candle3 lived so long and avoided learning anything?
*Evolutionists believe that nature is conscious, and that it
selects traits that it wants, much like a diner in a
smorgasbord. I'll take this, and one of them.
OK, maybe we can't
really blame Candle3 for this one, since he
]is a literalist. He doesn't understand that using anthropomorphic language
does not indicate actual anthropomorpism. Again, he only proves to us what a willful idiot he is that he also doesn't understand how language is used. So sad.
Also, it is important that we avoid anthropomorphizing things. They hate it when we do that.
*Evolutionists cannot replicate what they believe;
therefore, they must have faith that what they BELIEVE
in is right.
WTF is he talking about? Here Candle3 is pushing creationism's gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what science is and how it works.
Basically, scientists try to figure out how something works. In order to test their ideas they construct and perform experiments.
It is those experiments that others must be able to replicate,
not the phenomenon being studied. Consider the impracticality of having to reproduce in the lab the fusion reaction taking place in the center of the sun. It is extremely stupid to demand that the sun's fusion reaction must be reproduced in the lab or else our knowledge of how the sun works is nothing but "blind faith."
By the same lack of logic, they must also
believe that iron has the properties that can preserve
blood, veins, collagen, soft tissue, etc for tens of millions
of years. Talk about faith.
Here he is referring to his constant lies about the work of Dr. Mary Schweitzer which continue unabated.
Message 2943 (18-Sep-2023) is one of my many replies to his repeated lies (go to that message for an embedded video of an interview with Dr. Schweitzer and an examination of the "soft dinosaur claim"):
dwise1 writes:
[Candle3, y]ou keep misrepresenting Dr. Mary Schweitzer's work.
She never did find neither soft tissues nor blood cells. She doesn't know what the fuck you creationists are talking about, but she is really pissed off at you assholes for lying about her work.
Remember, she used to be a young-earth creationist herself and started working on her PhD Biology in order to learn more to use against evolution. Instead, she learned that creationists had been lying to her all along. And now they are lying even more, but this time about her and her work.
What she did find was that there is much more involved in fossilization than was previously thought. She did find fossilized remains of soft tissue and blood vessels, but not the original tissue and vessels. She had to soak that in an acid bath in order to remove the minerals which rendered the sample flexible. And she was able to find trace collagen, which is more durable than many proteins. Also, that was found inside a femur, which would have protected the original tissue longer, much like insect tissue can be preserved longer in amber or "green fossil" leaves can be preserved much longer when sealed in mud (such that the phylogenetic tree of those species of tree could be constructed by the evolution of its proteins).
His two "replies" were just refusals to even look at the truth and then change the subject.
I could go on, and on, and on, but evolutionists would still
have the ability to believe what the want to believe.
Whatever the fuck an "evolutionist" is supposed to be. That's just creationist gobblety-gook.
But
scientists trust their understanding of how nature works
based on the evidence. Rather,
it is the creationists who will believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence and in spite of the evidence.
I sincerely implore Candle3 to cease his stupid lies about evolution. Sadly, he never will.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
(1)