Evolution or not?

[watsup]

Elvira's example may have been poor but as I'm sure you are aware there are academics aplenty who take issue with many of the claims made by evolutionist (I see no harm in this term just as you see none in "creationist").

“Academics” or evolutionary biologists? There is an important difference.

 

[watsup]

I have no need to discuss this with you, I am not a novice and have studied this to a far deeper degree than most atheists (I used to BE an atheist recall) and I am quite convinced that your goal is to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing.

Nothing would be served by such a discussion, I'd learn nothing from you that I don't already know and you'd learn nothing for me because you have contempt for my opinions on almost everything.

You sure have lots of lame excuses for being afraid to state your opinions regarding evolution. So be it.

 

[watsup]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

“Academics” or evolutionary biologists? There is an important difference.

Yes there is, evolutionary biologists believe evolution is true, you'd hardly get an evolutionary biologist questioning the veracity of evolution FFS.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You sure have lots of lame excuses for being afraid to state your opinions regarding evolution. So be it.

Sonny, you're not up to the task, you are unfamiliar with the subject and unaware of the areas where evolution is inconsistent with observation, only someone who knows a lot more than you do is worth me spending time on.

 

[watsup]

Yes there is, evolutionary biologists believe evolution is true, you'd hardly get an evolutionary biologist questioning the veracity of evolution FFS.

Of course. That’s because they are the experts, not just dilettantes like some “academics” who have nothing but “opinions”.

 

[watsup]

Sonny, you're not up to the task, you are unfamiliar with the subject and unaware of the areas where evolution is inconsistent with observation, only someone who knows a lot more than you do is worth me spending time on.

Point proven re: lame excuses.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Of course. That’s because they are the experts, not just dilettantes like some “academics” who have nothing but “opinions”.

This is exactly what I mean, you don't even know that there are molecular biologists and biochemists who raise very important problems, some of these do not believe evolution happens at all and some think it happens in ways we haven't yet pinned down etc, but you know nothing about these.

Yet you persist in disparaging them even before you've heard what they have to say, and these guys know rather a lot more than you.

 

[watsup]

Sonny, you're not up to the task, you are unfamiliar with the subject and unaware of the areas where evolution is inconsistent with observation, only someone who knows a lot more than you do is worth me spending time on.

"Sonny". *L*. You are hilarious. This constant need to hide behind ad hom is a huge chink in your armor.

 

[watsup]

This is exactly what I mean, you don't even know that there are molecular biologists and biochemists who raise very important problems, some of these do not believe evolution happens at all and some think it happens in ways we haven't yet pinned down etc, but you know nothing about these.

Yet you persist in disparaging them even before you've heard what they have to say, and these guys know rather a lot more than you.

If you don't think that you are up to the task of arguing this on your own, then provide the names or articles or scientific papers of said scientists so that we can do some research on them and their objections.

You could also present any alternatives that you have to evolution as the manner in which life had come to its present from on this planet. Yes, with the exception of perhaps a few outliers, biological scientists basically speak with one voice in strating that evolution is indeed that manner.

 

[Aletheia]

Two points immediately stood out and caused me to wonder why the 'study' was accepted to begin with. The author, Sarah Umer, is not an Anthropologist. She is not even a scientist.

Well, she has a PhD in Art History Research, with research interests including the study of ancient civilizations and religions, predominantly in the South Asian region. I think that would qualify her to talk about Anthropology. So did the editor of the journal, apparently. Springer is a pretty reputable publisher in science and research. If you have a better paper showing some pros and cons of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, please post here.

The second issue is a single word, a word that in every work I've read on the subject being discussed - "evolutionist"...
The problems continue: Poor grammar and simple spelling errors

I wouldn't say it was loaded with poor grammar. And the Editor did point out it was released before peer review was completed.

A claim that "As many scientists, evolutionists, archeologist and different religious scriptures strongly claim that man came to the earth fully developed and did not evolve from a lesser species."
WHY is the author equating religious beliefs with the work of scientists? Does anyone see the oddity of saying that "evolutionists" believe "man came to the earth fully developed"?

I think what she was saying there, was that not all Scientists agree that man had a gradual development, as expected by TOE. They are not all in consensus.

Anthropology and Science are cross-disciplinary. Reading her paper, it is pretty clear to me that gathering data and studying cultural history adds empirical data and evidence to TOE. The theory should be consistently supported by empirical evidence. Things like tools and symbolic objects consistently occurring only something like 50 to 100 thousand years ago, does seem odd when you accept that our ancestors go back to 4 million years. Wouldn't you expect evolution to be more gradual? Her paper is pointing out some of these inconsistencies that Science seems to ignore.

The DP quote editor limited me on how much of your comments I could re-quote. But I don't find her comments worthless at all.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If you don't think that you are up to the task of arguing this on your own, then provide the names or articles or scientific papers of said scientists so that we can do some research on them and their objections.

You could also present any alternatives that you have to evolution as the manner in which life had come to its present from on this planet. Yes, with the exception of perhaps a few outliers, biological scientists basically speak with one voice in strating that evolution is indeed that manner.

No, no point if you're 100% satisfied beyond any doubt that life on earth today is due to evolution by natural selection then why ask me for this?

Only if you have an open mind is it worthwhile and an open mind means you're not 100% convinced already.

Tell me, are there any aspects of evolution, any specific claims, processes, evidence, data that you feel is a bit of a problem? something you are a bit uncomfortable with? or are you fully satisfied that it is true without any shadow of doubt?

 

[zyzygy]

"Sonny". *L*. You are hilarious. This constant need to hide behind ad hom is a huge chink in your armor.

It dissolves his armour.

 

[devildavid]

Sonny, you're not up to the task, you are unfamiliar with the subject and unaware of the areas where evolution is inconsistent with observation, only someone who knows a lot more than you do is worth me spending time on.

Evolution is not inconsistent with observation. You are unfamiliar with real science and too aware to crazy internet junk that totally misrepresents the facts about evolution and any so called controversies over it. You do not know a lot more about evolution than anyone else in this forum.

 

[iguanaman]

Again, that is your problem...I explained but you just don't get it...Jesus said to dust off your feet and move on...

Don't you have a roof to go sit on so you can wait for Armageddon?

Unfulfilled Watch Tower Society predictions - Wikipedia

 

[NWO_Spook]

Don't you have a roof to go sit on so you can wait for Armageddon?

Unfulfilled Watch Tower Society predictions - Wikipedia

Stay alive 'till '75! :doh

 

[watsup]

Evolution is not inconsistent with observation. You are unfamiliar with real science and too aware to crazy internet junk that totally misrepresents the facts about evolution and any so called controversies over it. You do not know a lot more about evolution than anyone else in this forum.

The absolute truth.....

 

[Lursa]

Evolution is not inconsistent with observation. You are unfamiliar with real science and too aware to crazy internet junk that totally misrepresents the facts about evolution and any so called controversies over it. You do not know a lot more about evolution than anyone else in this forum.

It's so funny. If evolutionary biologists 'know everything' and are satisfied they do...why are there still evolutionary biologists? What are they doing with their time? Twiddling their thumbs? LOLOLOL

Funny, they keep publishing...is it all just copy and paste from the past? :roll:

Or do some non-biologists just oversimplify complex processes and assume they know better? Hmmmmmm.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[watsup]

It's so funny. If evolutionary biologists 'know everything' and are satisfied they do...why are there still evolutionary biologists? What are they doing with their time? Twiddling their thumbs? LOLOLOL

Funny, they keep publishing...is it all just copy and paste from the past? :roll:

Or do some non-biologists just oversimplify complex processes and assume they know better? Hmmmmmm.

No one said that evolutionary biologists “know everything” but you. Strawman.

 

[Lursa]

No one said that evolutionary biologists “know everything” but you. Strawman.

LOLOLOLOL


He implied that they didnt have to research anymore if the 'theory' was valid. Keep up.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[watsup]

LOLOLOLOL


He implied that they didnt have to research anymore if the 'theory' was valid. Keep up.

There was no such implication. You are just making this all up.

 

[Questerr]

Yes, but science is also limited in its scope to natural explanation. It does not assert no supernatural deity because it has definitively proven there is none. It doesn’t explore that possibility because it cant. The Big Bang is a creation myth like any other. We just dress it up with mathematical formulas with true scientists keeping in mind that just because your equations say it’s possible doesn’t mean it’s true. “Dark matter” is currently the scientific equivalent of “God did it.”

Why should anyone believe in anything supernatural if there is no verifiable evidence for it?

 

[Napoleon]

Why should anyone believe in anything supernatural is there is no verifiable evidence for it?

I think people should be agnostic. The intellectually honest answer is that nobody knows if there is or isn’t a supernatural deity.

 

[Questerr]

I think people should be agnostic. The intellectually honest answer is that nobody knows if there is or isn’t a supernatural deity.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions. One deals with claims to knowledge and the other with beliefs.

But positive belief should always be supported by evidence, would you not agree?

 

[Napoleon]

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions. One deals with claims to knowledge and the other with beliefs.

But positive belief should always be supported by evidence, would you not agree?

They are mutually exclusive. The Agnostic position on the existence of a supernatural deity is best summed up as “I don’t know and we may never know.” The Atheist position is “There is absolutely no deity.” The later is not an intellectually honest position. Both positive and negative belief should be supported by evidence and we don’t have any in either direction.