lol, of course, that's why I wasted very little effort and time in this thread. It's been a while since I've decided to partially retire from religion threads, because it's having the same argument over and over. If the debate gets interesting I may join in from time to time, but god no will I carry out another back-and-forth debate with mouse ever again.
Yet another example of ad hominem.
"Science was wrong about X, therefore how can you believe they are right about Y?"
Science does indeed get things wrong.
That does not logically do anything to refute the theory of evolution specifically.
It is either valid and useful or not based on the strength of the evidence.
Evidence you don't bother to read or attempt to understand.
It isn't "cool" and "anti-establishment" enough, I guess.
And mouse just showed that he doesn't know what a citation is.
PROTIP: If you don't believe something you read on Wikipedia, check the source. If there is no source, remain skeptical. Those numbers next to phrases exist for a reason.
All your fallacies belong to us.
It shows there is a healthy weeding out of unsupported BS.
I have little doubt there is still a good deal of incorrect information in wikipedia.
That said, it has a vast amount of correct information that far outweighs this. On that balance that makes it a tool that provides for a good start in research.
One should approach it as one should approach anything online. Look for outside verification, and wider context.
I'll bring up a key aspect, why this isn't a good response, mouse. My mom having sex with koriwhat is something I would never approve of, doesn't matter when. Me learning that I share a common ancestor with chimps and the like, however long ago us humans evolved away, does not phase me one bit. , I could have been born a gorilla and morphed into a human 2 years later, and I would not look back and say, " , I'm some piece of for having been a monkey."
[quote]
Bold: correctalso.....all the info your used to believing in is changing daily..even the most ignorant evolutionist will admit science is always learning and changing.
Red: incorrect, particularly focusing on the underline
These are some examples, mouse, but they're not everything we know. And, they're not even completely correct. The sunlight issue is not black and white, like so much of our world. Moderation is the key. Some sunlight is good for you, way too much is not. Just like no sunlight at all, ever, is not too good.example one day sunlight is goo for you the next year its bad for you. At one time tobacco was good for you science backed it up.
Last edited by ALVAREZ6; 01-04-2011 at 09:01 PM.
Well, you clearly didn't actually read AND understand what I said, so let's try again:
Even my mother, who has survived stage 4 melanoma (the deadliest stage of the deadliest type of skin cancer), will tell you that some sun is good for you. She isn't a brilliant scientist or anything, just educated enough to know how to read, and understand.The sunlight issue is not black and white, like so much of our world. Moderation is the key. Some sunlight is good for you, way too much is not. Just like no sunlight at all, ever, is not too good.
How would they not have a tail wouldn't you want to let others know your life story?
Pssssst! I hate to break it to you but we all have tails.
Some are long like a Greyhound others are short like rabbit and ours are under the skin.
But if you did your homework you would know that already. And I am the "uneducated" one?
I think not. how many people you know changed our live today and didn't finish collage or high school?
For you lame one's who couldn't wait until page 5 to pull out the "where is your certificate of graduation" card tells me a lot about the gene pool in this topic.
Darwin teaches us Evolution changes to better itself in time that is why ape went to be a man but if that was true, why would we lose our tails?
how is losing tail helping us evolve for the better?
After all how many times have you wished you had one?
LMAO, humans have no use for a tail, mouse.
They do help many 4-legged animals for balance, though.
Mouse posts so much stupid . The worst part is that I really want to correct him, but I know he won't pay attention to anything.
W/O the tailbone you couldn't take a crap which might explain why your so full of..................
I'm sorry, what was that, was that mouse posting some more nonsense instead of accepting and learning from his mistakes in logic?
Yup.
Pretty much the same stupid over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
That is why I am fairly sure that even he doesn't believe a good chunk of it, on a level deep down that he won't admit to.
This entire post is simply a mischaractorization of the theory of evolution, yet again.How would they not have a tail wouldn't you want to let others know your life story?
Pssssst! I hate to break it to you but we all have tails.
Some are long like a Greyhound others are short like rabbit and ours are under the skin.
But if you did your homework you would know that already. And I am the "uneducated" one?
I think not. how many people you know changed our live today and didn't finish collage or high school?
For you lame one's who couldn't wait until page 5 to pull out the "where is your certificate of graduation" card tells me a lot about the gene pool in this topic.
Darwin teaches us Evolution changes to better itself in time that is why ape went to be a man but if that was true, why would we lose our tails?
how is losing tail helping us evolve for the better?
After all how many times have you wished you had one?
The person who orginally made that lie is either ignorant of the theory in its current form, or deliberately leaving things out. I think the majority of the creationist stuff you latch on to is mostly ignorant, with a touch of deliberate half-truths.
Your problem is that you don't know enough about the theory you are criticizing to be able to figure that out for yourself.
Not sure what the purpose of your 17 year old magazine clip is, but here an interesting recent development in our understanding of the evolution of whales:W/O the tailbone you couldn't take a crap which might explain why your so full of..................
Whales Descended From Tiny Deer-Like Ancestors
Evolutionary theory predicts that between the ancient and the new we will find distinct intermediary species. This prediction is borne out in the field.
Will we find EVERY intermediary species? No. Geology determines what is preserved and found, and it is simply not possible to re-contruct 100% of the fossil record. We don't need to do so.
Will some very ancient species still be around? Yes.
This does not contradict evolutionary theory. We would expect to see successful, wide-ranging species that are well adapted to stick around.
Neither bit stops creationists from saying that the lack of finding every intermediary species and the existance of very old species disproves the theory of evolution. Both assertions are based on a misunderstanding of the theory itself. In this, they are simply lies, since they misstate what the theory of evolution is, then attempt to disprove a distortion of the real theory.
Biologist:
"2 + 2 = 4"
Creationist:
"The biologist says that 2 + 2 = 5, what an idiot. Everybody knows that's wrong. See, you can disprove his theory right off the bat!"
I don't think the lying is really deliberate for the most part. A lot of it is simple ignorance, and the very human tendency towards confirmation bias.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 01-05-2011 at 10:20 AM.
For those interested in the case I think mouse was trying to make about whales:
Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution (from a Christian creationist website)
Seems to be a fairly old article, as none of the citations are newer than 1997.
It is fairly standard creationist fare. It attempts to make the article "feel" scientific by quoting scientific articles and scientists, but makes several outright misstatements and "hand-wavy" dismissals.
"This is impossible. Why? Because I said it is."
About the only thing that the guy gets right is that ". . . the evolutionary origin of whales remains controversial among zoologists."
Of course, none of this controversy is presented in a fair manner. For the creationist, disagreement as to the exact ancestor is cause to dismiss the entire "wild idea" of evolution, as if a disagreement among people measuring the number of atoms in a glass of water means there is no water in the glass.
The biggest lie in the article seems pretty willfully misleading.
Pretty much this entire paragraph, the lynchpin of the article is factually incorrect, and I think pretty willfully dishonest.Macroevolutionists cannot appeal to natural selection to produce amazing structures like the countercurrent system [that helps whales retain body warmth], although comparative physiologists present countercurrent exchange found in gills and kidneys as structures that repeatedly evolved.
Indeed, no known process can turn a four-legged land creature into a blue whale: "Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs."9 Specifically, natural selection cannot produce new structures
1. No biologist has ever claimed "natural selection produces new structures in an organism". This is a mischaractorization of evolutionary theory. (see strawman logical fallacy)
2. "no known process can turn a four-legged land creature into a blue whale" is blatantly false. Mutation and natural selection, a fully known process, pretty adequately explains this. This is a prime example of "hand wavy" dimissals. "2 + 2 =4? Why that is simply impossible!"
That is essentially a tautology and the kind of circular reasoning that creationists constantlly partake in. "Evolution is wrong, therefore it cannot explain how land animals turned into whales"
Bad logic, misleading "facts" and provable ignorance.
It is the kind of thing that only really appeals to the converted seeking some cloak of "truthiness" for their pre-existing beliefs.
I thought you didn't debate with others who have not shown their educational achievements?
The last photo I posted while drinking rolling rock is to show people that the so-called useless bone people claim used to be a leg on a whale is actually a bone used in mating.
Those of you who are ignorant to think man does not use his tail bone need to visit your proctologist and ask him or her.
The human tailbone is very important.
As far as posting something over and over and over as you say..could it be because your replies show your not getting the points I make?
Maybe if your shallow minds could absorb some of this knowledge I offer we could move on in other areas but you guys seem to be stuck on stupid.
on a side note: don't talk about me posting pictures from a 17 year old book and you have the nerve to quote Darwin and show fossil charts from the 1600s?
I don't see how 1993 is that far away considering your minds are stuck in the 1700s
I can see many in here don't possess the mental capability it takes to have a civil conversation, and the sad part is you all have all these so-called diplomas and achievements you expect others to have and yet you can't even seem to reply in a manor that is productive.
bones they show in the museums when they are telling kids whales used to have legs.
the bones are still used today in helping whales mate.
The pelvic bone in whales serves as an important anchor for muscles of the reproductive organs. Contrary to the claim in this figure, a structure cannot “show structural change over time.” The change over time must be inferred from assumptions about the fossil record and evolution. To know if an organ is vestigial, you must know its ancestors and exactly how the organ was used by those ancestors.
More lies in the text books.
Last edited by mouse; 01-05-2011 at 12:28 PM.
Another fallacy of logic my friend. I couldn't tell you the name of this fallacy, but one nonetheless.
If our minds are stuck in the 1700s (technically 1800s), yours is stuck somewhere from thousands of years ago.
... says the guy that repeats the same debunked stuff over and over and over and over.
et cetera et cetera, et cetera.
Really?
What people claimed that?
Link?
Do tell.
While you are at it, tell me exactly how the definition of "vestigal" is important to the theory of evolution.
You and I both know the whole tailbone nonsense is a complete distraction from the real discussion at hand, it means nothing.
Instead of bashing Mouse, who is actually trying to explain examples of his theory............why dont yall show us some proof as well.
Its like ya bash Mouse, then answer questions with questions. No one has proven in this thread, other than a great ability to smash people who believe in a different theory.
Fair enough.
What would you find acceptable?
What exactly do you think mouse's theory is?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
