Science at its worst

[Jose Fly]

Like religion? Yeah, I do see that. Oh, you mean 'science.'

Yes, I mean science. I take your consistent dodging is an indication that you can't answer the question.

You don't pay attention to me either, not that either of us owe the other that

Again, I take your consistent dodging as an indication that you can't back up your accusation.

Of course not

Then why do you keep doing it?

You just above showed your disdain as well as again illustrated you are not on TOL for intelligent conversation. My example would 'easily' be dismissed, no?

Again, I take your consistent dodging as an indication that you can't back up your claim that textbooks merely state "evolution did it".

Like you, I have several fields of study and so you don't rate on my radar either. It is mutual lain:
There is never an excuse for a scientist to even say such a thing (reserving inane vitriol for another time by contrast). See here While no scientist wants to disagree with Gould, this particular 'evolution expert' says the finches were all the same but the beaks. Well, that is not speciation and so much for your inept assessment here. Nice try, but you make me question your 'science' degree at every turn.

All you're showing is that you don't know the first thing about biology, let alone evolutionary biology. Yet for some reason you apparently think yourself qualified to critique it.

That's a very good personification of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is.

Given your inept supposed 'science-expertise' assessment, your input isn't desired anyway

Point out specifically where I've said anything wrong about science. Or is this yet another of your baseless accusations?

Again you don't pay attention, but lest we forget, you are not here for that reason anyway. You are inept.

Again I take your consistent dodging as an indication that you cannot back up your accusation that textbooks merely state "evolution did it".

I'd disagree

So what makes your empty say-so superior to the consensus view of the people who actually work in the field?

Pure assertion on your part.

Then show me wrong...answer the question no other creationist here can even attempt to answer: What has creationism contributed to science in the last 100 years?

I'd disagree for two reasons 1) Dunning-Kruger doesn't apply to laymen websites like this one directly.

???????? Yes it does. In fact, it's specifically about laypeople.

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is."

What part of "relatively unskilled persons" is beyond your ability to comprehend?

2) The website being laymen, is graced by those with any particular degree. You 'could' be a valued person here. You choose not to be but it is no reason for the disdain that you may possess the degree. It again amounts to your elitist self-love and infatuation disdaining the hoi poi and pretty much the essence of this repost of your's

Again, you make no sense at all.

First, I don't think the comparison viable because this wouldn't be said by a cognizant individual trying to assert something.

It's the equivalent of the ignorance of basic biology you've displayed.

 

[Caino]

It is statements like this that make me think you've never read a verse of the Bible in your life

Genesis 36:2

I've read it and can see it's many contradictions.


…2So Israel made a vow to the LORD and said, "If You will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities." 3The LORD heard the voice of Israel and delivered up the Canaanites; then they utterly destroyed them and their cities. Thus the name of the place was called Hormah.


The Israelites never did destroy all the Canaanites and certainly God never told them to kill them. That's the Hebrews nationalist history revisionism. Its the history written by the kind of people who killed Jesus.

 

[6days]

I've read it and can see it's many contradictions.


…2So Israel made a vow to the LORD and said, "If You will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities." 3The LORD heard the voice of Israel and delivered up the Canaanites; then they utterly destroyed them and their cities. Thus the name of the place was called Hormah.


The Israelites never did destroy all the Canaanites and certainly God never told them to kill them. That's the Hebrews nationalist history revisionism. Its the history written by the kind of people who killed Jesus.

Caino.....
God's Word has no contradictions.
Would you day that the above verses are the best you can offer as a clear contradiction in scripture?

 

[Lon]

Yes, I mean science. I take your consistent dodging is an indication that you can't answer the question.

I've already done so. You being inept? Yep. Your narcissistic prowess is unassailable. You aren't here for intelligence anyway. "Fun" and "mockery" are not noble pursuits. You aren't honest enough to do anything but show narcissism, disdain, and worthless canards. I'm again, merely giving you ample opportunity to disdain your own profession with this kind of contempt.

Again, I take your consistent dodging as an indication that you can't back up your accusation.
Then why do you keep doing it?

1) already have provided examples and 2) I don't owe you, superfly.

Again, I take your consistent dodging as an indication that you can't back up your claim that textbooks merely state "evolution did it".

Likewise, I've never said "god-did-it." Rather, the contention is that is the given sentiment, repeatedly. Look for 'through evolution' or 'through evolutionary processes.' IOW, "Evolution-did-it. lain:

All you're showing is that you don't know the first thing about biology, let alone evolutionary biology. Yet for some reason you apparently think yourself qualified to critique it.

Hate to bust the bank, but every student knows the first thing about biology. Every student does NOT know the first thing about Biblical truth. Your narcissism is misplaced lain:

That's a very good personification of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

See above, you are inept.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is.

See above, everyone has a good grasp of basic biology, champ.

Point out specifically where I've said anything wrong about science. Or is this yet another of your baseless accusations?

Having taught this, I try to 'foster' scientific inquiry, not stroke my narcissism, superfly. You obviously don't read links. :noway: Regarding science, not reading it means you are inept. You couldn't even have been bothered to read the paper where she said the beaks were the only differentiation. And, as we've established, you are here to find fodder for further inane office/lab mockery, not to discuss science intelligently. As I said, I think you have a degree and all but what you have to do in mindless repetition in a lab somewhere is forgotten. You certainly show me little to no prowess but instead this mindless inanity. You are easily humored by simpleton expressions, Superfly.

Again I take your consistent dodging as an indication that you cannot back up your accusation that textbooks merely state "evolution did it".

You are an inane broken record. Being you are only looking for the inane mockery or 'fun' no surprise, superfly :yawn: As I said, you don't listen so it is expected.

So what makes your empty say-so superior to the consensus view of the people who actually work in the field?

See the narcissism there, Superfly? If I could get you to see your own detestable self, perhaps you'd stop being narcissistic and detestable...

Then show me wrong...answer the question no other creationist here can even attempt to answer: What has creationism contributed to science in the last 100 years?

I just told you and you are being ingenuine or dishonest, 6-days provided you quotes. How narcissistic are you? How hoi poi...(never mind, this much is obvious Mr. Hoiti Toiti.

???????? Yes it does. In fact, it's specifically about laypeople.
Whether
"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is."
What part of "relatively unskilled persons" is beyond your ability to comprehend?

within atheist circles, this effect has taken on a pop-psychology in preference and portrayal, such as you've given here. It doesn't say much for you and only further lessens my opinion of any kind of prowess your narcissism employs.

Again, you make no sense at all.

I'm certain to the uninitiated narcissistic superfly, this is true.

It's the equivalent of the ignorance of basic biology you've displayed.

Assertion without substance :yawn:

 

[Caino]

Caino.....
God's Word has no contradictions.
Would you day that the above verses are the best you can offer as a clear contradiction in scripture?

I agree that Gods true Wird has no real contradiction, but the written word is fraught with contradiction and inaccurate history. The Bible was written and rewritten by men.

 

[Jose Fly]

I've already done so.

You did? Where did you specify what field of science I am dismissing?

1) already have provided examples

No you didn't. You accused geochronologists of merely guessing and assuming things, yet you can't point to a single example of them doing so.

the contention is that is the given sentiment, repeatedly. Look for 'through evolution' or 'through evolutionary processes.' IOW, "Evolution-did-it.

Let me see if I have this straight....we know that populations evolve because we see it happen, all the time, right before our eyes. We know how they evolve because we see it happen, all the time, right before our eyes. We know enough about how populations evolve such that we are able to manipulate the process to our own ends, and even apply those mechanisms to solve problems in other fields (genetic algorithms).

In all the time we've been studying biology, every new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've seen arise has done so via evolution. Not once have we ever seen a different process produce anything.

Yet according to you, scientists are not allowed to acknowledge this observed reality and must pretend that evolution never occurs and even if it did, we would have no idea how it happens?

Not only is that positively bizarre, it makes me wonder what alternative process you have in mind for generating new traits in biological organisms? If the influenza virus isn't different every year because it evolved, how exactly did it change to the point where a new vaccine is needed?

Hate to bust the bank, but every student knows the first thing about biology.

Not you...you've made your ignorance of the subject very obvious.

Having taught this, I try to 'foster' scientific inquiry, not stroke my narcissism, superfly. You obviously don't read links. :noway: Regarding science, not reading it means you are inept. You couldn't even have been bothered to read the paper where she said the beaks were the only differentiation. And, as we've established, you are here to find fodder for further inane office/lab mockery, not to discuss science intelligently. As I said, I think you have a degree and all but what you have to do in mindless repetition in a lab somewhere is forgotten. You certainly show me little to no prowess but instead this mindless inanity. You are easily humored but simpleton expressions, Superfly.

I take your repeated dodging as an indication that you can't point to anything wrong I've said about science.

See the narcissism there, Superfly? If I could get you to see your own detestable self, perhaps you'd stop being narcissistic and detestable...

Another dodge. Again, what makes your empty say-so superior to the consensus view of the people who actually work in the field?

I just told you and you are being ingenuine or dishonest, 6-days provided you quotes. How narcissistic are you? How hoi poi...(never mind, this much is obvious Mr. Hoiti Toiti.

So the two of you actually think science is less than 100 years old? Remember, the question was for you to name something creationism has contributed to science in the last 100 years. Since you both try and answer by saying that creationism is what led to scientific study, that must mean you both think science only started less than 100 years ago.

Thus, either you two are hilariously ignorant of the history of science, or you're very dishonest. Which is it?

within atheist circles, this effect has taken on a pop-psychology in preference and portrayal, such as you've given here.

Folks like you are a very good illustration of the effect. You both demonstrate your ignorance of biology while simultaneously anointing yourself sufficiently qualified to critique it.

Assertion without substance :yawn:

Your post about finches was one of the most ignorant things I've ever read from a creationist, and that's saying a lot. Congratulations I guess.

 

[6days]

I agree that Gods true Wird has no real contradiction, but the written word is fraught with contradiction and inaccurate history. The Bible was written and rewritten by men.

You avoided the question I asked.
Would you say that the above verses are the best you can offer as a clear contradiction in scripture?

Pick the biggest baddest proof from the Bible that convinces you it can't be trusted.
(Just pick the best one you wish to defend.... not a list)

 

[Lon]

You did? Where did you specify what field of science I am dismissing?

:doh: You really don't read well. This isn't part of that discussion.

No you didn't. You accused geochronologists of merely guessing and assuming things, yet you can't point to a single example of them doing so.

I've given several links in threads, as did 6 days. I also asked you to look up 'the evolutionary process' or 'by evolutionary process.' Both are implicitly 'evolution-did-it' and by no means the only expressions of 'evolution-did-it.' And, do you recall in this very thread that you cited a bunch of papers that include 'evolution' in them? I'd about guarantee half of them are nothing more than 'evolution-did-it' kinds of inane statements.

Let me see if I have this straight....we know that populations evolve because we see it happen, all the time, right before our eyes. We know how they evolve because we see it happen, all the time, right before our eyes. We know enough about how populations evolve such that we are able to manipulate the process to our own ends, and even apply those mechanisms to solve problems in other fields (genetic algorithms).

Wait, you are saying if 'we' do it, that's also evolution? How is that not intelligent design or intelligent manipulation, instead and more potentially a mimickery of the same?

In all the time we've been studying biology, every new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've seen arise has done so via evolution.

:doh: "evolution-did-it."

Not once have we ever seen a different process produce anything.

Predation, your own example of human intervention for just two? Why are you so two-dimensional, Jose? You 'could' actually teach me something instead of being this inane parody of a body.

Yet according to you, scientists are not allowed to acknowledge this observed reality and must pretend that evolution never occurs and even if it did, we would have no idea how it happens?

All I've said was describe rather than tell.

Not only is that positively bizarre, it makes me wonder what alternative process you have in mind for generating new traits in biological organisms? If the influenza virus isn't different every year because it evolved, how exactly did it change to the point where a new vaccine is needed?

Do you really sit in a lab and say 'It evolved." or do you describe the change in process? Who is going to argue with you saying "It looked like this, now it looks like this, and this and this are going to make it harder to combat in the future." I can't think of anybody.

Not you...you've made your ignorance of the subject very obvious.

I'll make sure to bring this up with my brother in biology, but 1) I've read this in a critical analysis and 2) Don't feel terrible that I don't take your word for his/her or my lack in grasping what you think is wrong.

I take your repeated dodging as an indication that you can't point to anything wrong I've said about science.

You've missed the boat on this one. It has sailed far away from what I was actually giving you grief about.

Another dodge. Again, what makes your empty say-so superior to the consensus view of the people who actually work in the field?

There are a lot of papers written on Darwin's finches, almost all creationist websites call into question the differentiation of beaks and whether this means a finch evolved with stronger beaks, whether a better verb than 'evolution-did-it' is most likely. I've repeated what I've read. Now, of course, you've taken the pithy and inane route and called my biology into question rather than asking where I'd heard it. I don't know why you have this hate and disdain but it does press you into a two-dimensional reactionary with little to offer, even in science because of it.

So the two of you actually think science is less than 100 years old? Remember, the question was for you to name something creationism has contributed to science in the last 100 years. Since you both try and answer by saying that creationism is what led to scientific study, that must mean you both think science only started less than 100 years ago.

Reverting to two-dimensional inanity, Jose lain: You keep taking every bit of rope to hang yourself.....and your profession... :sigh:

Thus, either you two are hilariously ignorant of the history of science, or you're very dishonest. Which is it?

Yeah, that's it. Now watch you try to defend this as if... lain: Why does any referce have to be about all said in that reference? 1) 100 years doesn't matter, and 2) Creationists called into question, rightly, the Darwinistic evolution chart. The problem with the chart is it doesn't express accuracy, even if one buys common ancestry. We helped even evolutionists admit to the problems of that chart as well as pressed for better and viable science expressions. Asking and challenging results is part of the scientific process, it is a good thing.

Folks like you are a very good illustration of the effect. You both demonstrate your ignorance of biology while simultaneously anointing yourself sufficiently qualified to critique it.

Human science is science as well and you should look to critiques of the phenomena as well as realize the over-employment of this among many has become pop-psych for atheists, mostly. It does tell me what other websites you might frequent? Specifically, this study was about testing at a Cornell University and given prior to the actual test how well students thought they knew the material. I have no illusions about my biology prowess. I can even be corrected by a sane and caring man/woman of science. It is sad that you've never desired that noble position or influence. Think on this, you could have spent much less time and space telling me why you thought why I and several websites were wrong (not all Christian) regarding Darwin's finches (and moths). On top of that, describing what actually happens, nobody is going to give tons of grief other than if the answer amounted to "evolution-did-it."

Your post about finches was one of the most ignorant things I've ever read from a creationist, and that's saying a lot. Congratulations I guess.

And I've read it in repeated places, many of them Christian[/url] in origin but even this one for the nsce [/url]describes the finches beaks as I did, as inheritance. I'm not sure why you jump to 'most ignorant' but I cannot take you seriously when even a secular source attributes a percentage that not only allows, but expresses the adaptation in similar terms. Ignorant science questions are yet science. You'd close off inquiry as stupid, inane, ridiculous, and immature. As I said, It might depend on the audacity and pride of the one asserting but you don't seem to have that gage when it comes to Christians.

 

[Crucible]

All atheists are born experts of evolution and anthropology, and one should always assume that what they say is accurate because they are infallible prodigies of logic. All of them

 

[Caino]

You avoided the question I asked.
Would you say that the above verses are the best you can offer as a clear contradiction in scripture?

Pick the biggest baddest proof from the Bible that convinces you it can't be trusted.
(Just pick the best one you wish to defend.... not a list)

To begin with the Hebrew redactors who wrote the current Old Testament didn't claim it was Gods word. The OT culled from existing creation myths in its day. The Jews were not a miraculous people, but they did develope a racial pride that lead them to write as if they were Gods chosen people.

In the beginning, the factual inaccuracies begin with the garbled, fragmented story of Adam and Eve being the first humans. We know the earth is very old and man evolved, but bible worshipers are not allowed to concede that to anyone at any time. Even within the creation story Eves child Cain knows the world is populated, he fears leaving the tribe of his mothers people.

Eve and Adam are the ones who lost the use of the tree of life due specifically to their sin. Death was already normal for man.


Genesis just gets more rediculous from there.

Btw, I didn't avoid the question, rather I have no hope you will be intellectually honest because you really do think God wrote the Bible.

 

[Jose Fly]

:doh: You really don't read well. This isn't part of that discussion.

So you're bailing on that as well. Such is your pattern of behavior.

I've given several links in threads, as did 6 days.

And not one of those had an example of geochronologists merely guessing and assuming things. Therefore your accusation is entirely without merit and can be rejected.

I also asked you to look up 'the evolutionary process' or 'by evolutionary process.' Both are implicitly 'evolution-did-it' and by no means the only expressions of 'evolution-did-it.' And, do you recall in this very thread that you cited a bunch of papers that include 'evolution' in them? I'd about guarantee half of them are nothing more than 'evolution-did-it' kinds of inane statements.

Um....are you saying that any time scientists use the term "evolution" that constitutes them merely asserting "evolution did it"?

Wait, you are saying if 'we' do it, that's also evolution? How is that not intelligent design or intelligent manipulation, instead and more potentially a mimickery of the same?

Of course it is evolution. If I go out and run my garden hose until the water carves a little ditch, that's still erosion. Likewise, if I conduct an experiment where bacteria evolve a new trait, that's still evolution.

Predation, your own example of human intervention for just two?

Again we see your ignorance on display. Predation is one of the mechanisms that drive evolution. Specifically, predators are a type of selective force.

Why are you so two-dimensional, Jose? You 'could' actually teach me something instead of being this inane parody of a body.

If I thought for a second that you were at all teachable, I would consider it. Your behaviors however indicate otherwise.

All I've said was describe rather than tell.

And that's what they do. Did you read any of the papers from the search results I posted?

Do you really sit in a lab and say 'It evolved." or do you describe the change in process?

Had you read the material, you would have seen that descriptions of the evolutionary processes are the norm.

Who is going to argue with you saying "It looked like this, now it looks like this, and this and this are going to make it harder to combat in the future." I can't think of anybody.

Again you fail to make sense.

There are a lot of papers written on Darwin's finches, almost all creationist websites call into question the differentiation of beaks and whether this means a finch evolved with stronger beaks, whether a better verb than 'evolution-did-it' is most likely. I've repeated what I've read. Now, of course, you've taken the pithy and inane route and called my biology into question rather than asking where I'd heard it. I don't know why you have this hate and disdain but it does press you into a two-dimensional reactionary with little to offer, even in science because of it.

Not one bit of that has anything to do with what I asked. Again...what makes your empty say-so superior to the consensus view of the people who actually work in the field?

Why does any referce have to be about all said in that reference?

When you figure out what you were trying to say here, let me know.

1) 100 years doesn't matter

So the fact that creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in at least a century "doesn't matter" to you? That certainly says a lot about you.

2) Creationists called into question, rightly, the Darwinistic evolution chart. The problem with the chart is it doesn't express accuracy, even if one buys common ancestry. We helped even evolutionists admit to the problems of that chart as well as pressed for better and viable science expressions. Asking and challenging results is part of the scientific process, it is a good thing.

What chart and where exactly is the documentation of creationists helping with it?

I have no illusions about my biology prowess.

Do you think you're qualified to critique the work of evolutionary biologists?

I can even be corrected by a sane and caring man/woman of science. It is sad that you've never desired that noble position or influence. Think on this, you could have spent much less time and space telling me why you thought why I and several websites were wrong (not all Christian) regarding Darwin's finches (and moths).

It's very revealing that you try and blame your own ignorance on others.

And I've read it in repeated places, many of them Christian in origin

The overtly fundamentalist Christian, anti-science organization AiG agrees with you. That's hardly surprising. It's also funny how you think that's a point in your favor.

but even this one for the nsce describes the finches beaks as I did, as inheritance.[/quote]

You can't be serious. On one hand you complain whenever biologists use the term "evolution", and now here you cite a section of a document that's titled "Evolution in a bird's beak" as supporting you?

Wow.

 

[6days]

Let me see if I have this straight....we know that populations evolve because we see it happen, all the time, right before our eyes. We know how they evolve because we see it happen, all the time, right before our eyes. We know enough about how populations evolve such that we are able to manipulate the process to our own ends, and even apply those mechanisms to solve problems in other fields.

You are discussing the Biblical model of rapid adaptation...BUT, you are using the fallacy of equivocation to try sell your beliefs.

We see rapid adaptation within created kinds. We see bacteria changing into bacteria. We see breeding varieties within created kinds etc.

See TOL thread on Rapid Adaptation... http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation

In all the time we've been studying biology, every new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've seen arise has done so via evolution. Not once have we ever seen a different process produce anything.

See TOL thread on Rapid Adaptation... http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation

Yet according to you, scientists are not allowed to acknowledge this observed reality and must pretend that evolution never occurs and even if it did, we would have no idea how it happens?

See TOL thread on Rapid Adaptation... http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation

Not only is that positively bizarre, it makes me wonder what alternative process you have in mind for generating new traits in biological organisms? If the influenza virus isn't different every year because it evolved, how exactly did it change to the point where a new vaccine is needed?

See TOL thread on Rapid Adaptation... http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation

 

[6days]

You avoided the question I asked.
Would you say that the above verses are the best you can offer as a clear contradiction in scripture?

Pick the biggest baddest proof from the Bible that convinces you it can't be trusted.
(Just pick the best one you wish to defend.... not a list)

To begin with the Hebrew redactors who wrote the current Old Testament didn't claim it was Gods word. The OT culled from existing creation myths in its day. The Jews were not a miraculous people, but they did develope a racial pride that lead them to write as if they were Gods chosen people.

In the beginning, the factual inaccuracies begin with the garbled, fragmented story of Adam and Eve being the first humans. We know the earth is very old and man evolved, but bible worshipers are not allowed to concede that to anyone at any time. Even within the creation story Eves child Cain knows the world is populated, he fears leaving the tribe of his mothers people.

Eve and Adam are the ones who lost the use of the tree of life to specifically to their sin. Death was already normal for man.

Caino.... You are avoiding answering.

You claimed the Bible has contradictions.

You seem unwilling...or unable to provide what you think is the best clear example.

 

[Caino]

Caino.... You are avoiding answering.

You claimed the Bible has contradictions.

You seem unwilling...or unable to provide what you think is the best clear example.

6days.....you avoided my answer. From the beginning, the bible contradicts reality.

There are many lists of simple contradictions beyond the obveous ones, at least obveous to reasonable people.

 

[6days]

6days.....you avoided my answer. From the beginning, the bible contradicts reality.

There are many lists of simple contradictions beyond the obveous ones, at least obveous to reasonable people.

Caino.....
You are unable to give a single unambiguous example of a contradiction.
Yes... I have seen lists. But, you can't pick even 1 item on those lists as a clear example of a contradiction. (Anything that would change the message of scripture) You just blindly believe the lists?

 

[Lon]

So you're bailing on that as well. Such is your pattern of behavior.

You assume a lot, superfly. You can chalk this up to you being inept in poor assumptions.

And not one of those had an example of geochronologists merely guessing and assuming things. Therefore your accusation is entirely without merit and can be rejected.

. You aren't a careful man in your pursuit for the ridiculous.

Um....are you saying that any time scientists use the term "evolution" that constitutes them merely asserting "evolution did it"?

Again, realize I think it is an imprecise sloppy word. If you had bothered to read AiG, which you didn't, the problem with it is that it elicites all kinds of objections about things even science has left behind in Darwinism. They changed their views but failed to change the terminolog. In addition, it is used for every lazy Jack out there instead of giving better descriptors or even adopting a word that would better suit what is seen. However, I didn't say every time, even in the very sentence you responded to :noway:

Of course it is evolution. If I go out and run my garden hose until the water carves a little ditch, that's still erosion. Likewise, if I conduct an experiment where bacteria evolve a new trait, that's still evolution.

You'd 'think' then, that science wouldn't have a problem with intelligence behind design. Odd that.

Again we see your ignorance on display. Predation is one of the mechanisms that drive evolution. Specifically, predators are a type of selective force.

You didn't read the article from AiG. That's pretty obvious here (meaning your obtusion, not mine. It would have taken you what? 4 minutes? Well, for you, double that. I didn't think you could be bothered, having this incredible prejudice.

If I thought for a second that you were at all teachable, I would consider it. Your behaviors however indicate otherwise.

I don't think so, Fly, not on a Christian website. You stated long ago you aren't here for that and your narcissism is too large for that.

And that's what they do. Did you read any of the papers from the search results I posted?

Yes. Though, again, 'evolution' anything is when explanation gets sloppy. It is a gross (large) bin word that means little when other conveyances are better. You even make the point latter on, saying 'that's evolution.' Well great, say that instead then.

Had you read the material, you would have seen that descriptions of the evolutionary processes are the norm.

:sigh: Then why argue with me, Jose?

Again you fail to make sense.

The failure is all your's. Alone. lain: Above, you said 'description' is what you guys do more often than 'evolution.' You don't even want me agreeing with you, er, when I agree with you. That's clear in your last sentence in this post too.

Not one bit of that has anything to do with what I asked. Again...what makes your empty say-so superior to the consensus view of the people who actually work in the field?

Or you with a BAS against a PhD from a AiG? :noway:
Isn't that a Dunning-Kruger faux Pas on your part? Remember I have had biology, even in college before you say 'no.' Likely many of the others on TOL have as well. I believe you are going to have to say 'yes' busterbrown.

When you figure out what you were trying to say here, let me know.

You know, seriously, I think you hit 'reply' instead of reading content. Don't do it any more. It doesn't make you look very smart. Stop doing it.

So the fact that creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in at least a century "doesn't matter" to you? That certainly says a lot about you.

It doesn't say Jack, charlatan fly-boy. It says your 100 year imposition is interested in the superficial. "When" isn't as important as the admission 'did' which 100 years certainly concedes. You lost, it doesn't matter after that.

What chart and where exactly is the documentation of creationists helping with it?

Type in "Darwin evolution chart." It's wrong. I'm a creationist. You are welcome.

Do you think you're qualified to critique the work of evolutionary biologists?

Yes. Why? Because I know how to write a cogent sentence. A scientist can do good science and write about with much less expertise.

It's very revealing that you try and blame your own ignorance on others.

Er, no. Nice try, armchair.

The overtly fundamentalist Christian, anti-science organization AiG agrees with you. That's hardly surprising. It's also funny how you think that's a point in your favor.

Er, with PhD's and you with a BAS? Dunning-Kureg irony?

but even this one for the nsce describes the finches beaks as I did, as inheritance.

You can't be serious. On one hand you complain whenever biologists use the term "evolution", and now here you cite a section of a document that's titled "Evolution in a bird's beak" as supporting you?
Wow.

I didn't say I agreed with 'evolution.' I said I agreed with a few points. "...but even this..." should have cued you to the idea that I agreed with something and not all of the link. You are wasting my time with your low-brow interests and fraternity antics. Go spend some time with your kids. Quit wasting time on endeavors that aren't worth the space. Tell your Christian wife you love her and ask her what makes Christ appealing to her. Do something actually worthwhile.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

Why, because you say so? Do you honestly think if "SonOfCaleb" in a religious internet board says something is so, everyone else will accept it as unquestioned gospel?

No, not because i say so but because Science and eminent men in the field of carbon dating have ADMITTED there are no empirical methods that can date with absolute accuracy that far into the past and thus the accepted methods are largely based on a slew of wild assumptions. Again i repeat NO EMPIRICAL dating methods exist. Science knows this. So why are you unwilling to accept objective Science that doesn't accord with your own proclivity's?
You've effectively accused me of religious bias and yet not only is your bias self evident in your post you're also equally unable to present any Science or dating method that can provide empirical dating to 7 decimal places. Not that id expect you to as this is an internet board after all and if anyone of us knew the answer to that question i doubt we'd be rankling the point on an internet message board...

And just for the record let me be very clear i am absolutely an exponent of objective Sciences, rationale thought/thinking, and Science that which can be repeated, observed, tested and proven via scientific or analytic methods. It is after all the nature of my work.But what I'm not going to accept is Science fiction just because 'someone' or a a 'scientist' simply says so.

There's a huge chasm between fact and opinion where Science is concerned. I choose the former.

 

[Caino]

No, I don't blindly believe lists, I knew the Bible books were flawed and human long before the internet or purported lists. And some of the lists I have seen aren't all contradictions, some are.

The Bible is human and should be viewed in that light, but once one makes the Bible a type of idol or fetish then it stuns growth and prevents one from facing scientific facts honestly.

You and I have had this discussion before, others have pointed out flaws as well but you aren't capable of conceding anything.

 

[6days]

No, I don't blindly believe lists, I knew the Bible books were flawed and human long before the internet or purported lists. And some of the lists I have seen aren't all contradictions, some are.

The Bible is human and should be viewed in that light, but once one makes the Bible a type of idol or fetish then it stuns growth and prevents one from facing scientific facts honestly.

You and I have had this discussion before, others have pointed out flaws as well but you aren't capable of conceding anything.

You still refuse to answer the question.
You do blindly believe Caino... You keep insisting there are contradictions, but you are unable to give even 1 clear example of a contradiction that changes or corrupts the Gospel.

 

[PureX]

To adhere to a religion that forces people to disregard the evidence of reality in the name of faith is to serve a concept of deity that promotes dishonesty. And since dishonesty is a primary factor in most human suffering, I do not believe it is logical, reasonable, nor healthy for human beings to embrace such a destructive concept of deity.