Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[MercyPercy]

See how pointless that is? The adults have been having a good discussion here for quite some time and all you do is chime in with 1 liners that you think are clever. Waste of time and bandwidth.

His entire post was an exercise in futile effort to posture himself on the side of science, because that's what believers do when they realize how damn stupid they sound making the old arguments and citing Biblical examples.

I'm just making sure he knows that we see their maneuvering for what it is.

 

[VOLatile]

No...telling the truth.

Is there physical proof any animal has ever produced a different kind of animal either thru live birth or an egg?

Ill wait for this one.

Next question: When there is no proof that something ever occurred, even once...to believe it happens is:

A: Science
B: Faith

You have no idea how this works, do you?

Animals just don't pop out different species. It's a "gradual change over time." Literally, a slow process. Homo sapien wasn't just born from a monkey, like you seem to think.

 

[MercyPercy]

Given the topic, it's not a dumb question. If you have a source that refutes or otherwise shows there is not a scientific consensus to his question then please, share it.

Dance and dodge, manipulate the question in order to give a hollow answer. And if all else fails, cry appeal to authority.

How dare you cite the most respected scientists of the modern age. The absurdity of it all. Fallacy! Fallacyyyyyy!

 

[Septic]

No...telling the truth.

Is there physical proof any animal has ever produced a different kind of animal either thru live birth or an egg?

Ill wait for this one.

Clearly you haven't an inkling of how evolution is theorized.

Your question is profoundly ignorant.

Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron would be proud of your argument of "Kinds", however. Whatever the heck that is...

I'm glad we have a YEC on here - I was starting to lose interest in this thread.

 

[MercyPercy]

You have no idea how this works, do you?

Animals just don't pop out different species. It's a "gradual change over time." Literally, a slow process. Homo sapien wasn't just born from a monkey, like you seem to think.

I think that's actually the major problem. He really has no clue how it works.

He has this picture in his head of a fish giving birth to a lizard giving birth to a rat giving birth to a monkey giving birth to a human.

 

[utvolpj]

I think that's actually the major problem. He really has no clue how it works.

He has this picture in his head of a fish giving birth to a lizard giving birth to a rat giving birth to a monkey giving birth to a human.

picture of out ratlizardmonkey ancestor

 

[MercyPercy]

picture of out ratlizardmonkey ancestor

Does Mav know you got pics of his cousin?

 

[Septic]

I think that's actually the major problem. He really has no clue how it works.

He has this picture in his head of a fish giving birth to a lizard giving birth to a rat giving birth to a monkey giving birth to a human.

 

[Septic]

picture of out ratlizardmonkey ancestor

Ugh. Is that Satan?

 

[Persian Vol]

At one time, pretty much everyone on earth believed it to be flat. That did not make the world flat. Appeals to Authority are wasted keystrokes.

I'm sorry but that is an idiotic analogy.
Your basically implying your skeptiscm for a current belief is because humans were once dead wrong before. Completely unrelatable and more so ironic considering the time period you used corresponds with the introduction of the belief you have spent advocating for the past week.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm sorry but that is an idiotic analogy.
Your basically implying your skeptiscm for a current belief is because humans were once dead wrong before. Completely unrelatable and more so ironic considering the time period you used corresponds with the introduction of the belief you have spent advocating for the past week.

If you've kept reading the thread, you've seen that the point of the analogy proves that consensus does not dictate truth. It was an analogy to point out the fallacy in appeals to authority/agreement.

Thank you. Have a nice day. :hi:

 

[Roustabout]

Are you denying there is a scientific consensus regarding the origin of modern birds?

Percy, not to sound trite, but I question whether you read anything I posted? It said, we now have evidence that modern bird types co-existed with dinosuars. If they were contemporaries then one didn't come from the other.

I cited secular science and articles relating to research that refutes the current theory on bird to dino evolution. Didn't we just go through about 3 pages of people begging for falsifiabitly?
Now it would appear that you weigh consensus more than evidence. Friend, consensus is NOT part of the scientific process. It never has been and never will. If paleontoligist are not up to date on the most recent evidence, that is one thing. If (and i emphasize if) paleontologist KNOW about duck type birds co-existing with dinosaurs, and they still hold their BELIEF, then we have a much larger problem.

Keep in mind here that my argument is not that Darwinism is false because of this finding. Only that a specific theory within Darwinism is falsified.

I don't know the consensus because I haven't seen any polling data. The overwhelming majority of science professionals are specialized. For the most part they have no details of what is going on in a particular field of study outside of their specialty. My sister-in-law is a phd in veterinary genetic research. But what does she know about forrestry research that is going on in the next building where my sister is a phd? Nothing. And vice versa. And we could say the same about my brother who is a wildlife biologist.
To their knowledge, the theory that birds are descended from dinos is still valid. You see, that is how science works. Science is right....., until it isn't. Again, science is not a thing. It is a process.

I think it is also important to point out that the fossil record is forensic science. You cannot examine the past, ever. Fossils exist in the present, not the past. We can and do make inferences about the past, but we are constrained to do that by examining the present. You cannot test and repeat the fossil record.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I believe in DE as far as variation in species. Nothing more. Do I think all dogs ( as well as wolves etc.) Had a common ancestor? Sure. Guess what? It was a dog. Not a bird. Or a fish...or an asparagus. God said animals would "bring forth according to their kind." They are the same kind of animal.
I believe in microevolution in several different forms. Do strains of bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? Yes. This is verifiable fact. If humans are injected with cowpox do theybuildan immunity to smallpox? Sure. These things are science. Testable repeatable science.
Do I believe I came from a rock? Hell no.. and I think its a lil crazy and mucho illogical to believe you did. I also don't believe that I descended from any kind of primate. Feel free to if you like...I don't care if you go pick flees off of your "distant cousin" at thee zoo.

This makes no sense.

You acknowledge that microevolution (bacteria) occurs and that macroevolution (all dogs and wolves have a common ancestor) occurs but reject such natural biological laws when it comes homo sapiens.

The natural laws which govern biology would apply to all biology; not just the biology of your choosing.

 

[Roustabout]

This makes no sense.

You acknowledge that microevolution (bacteria) occurs and that macroevolution (all dogs and wolves have a common ancestor) occurs but reject such natural biological laws when it comes homo sapiens.

The natural laws which govern biology would apply to all biology; not just the biology of your choosing.

Sorry PKT, but now you are playing fast and loose with the definitions. What laws are at work, and what are you claiming as macro? Common ancestory among canines does not example macroevolution. The diversity in canines is due to a loss of information. There is nothing among the ancestory of canines that shows new genetic information being formed to result in a new class of animal. Nothing here accounts for the existance of the canine genetic code in the first place.

Through observation we can see how breeding has selected for certain traits. The key though is that the traits ALREADY exist.

What you refer to is the opposite of the evidence that is NECESSARY for molecules to man evolution.

 

[MercyPercy]

Percy, not to sound trite, but I question whether you read anything I posted? It said, we now have evidence that modern bird types co-existed with dinosuars. If they were contemporaries then one didn't come from the other.

I cited secular science and articles relating to research that refutes the current theory on bird to dino evolution. Didn't we just go through about 3 pages of people begging for falsifiabitly?
Now it would appear that you weigh consensus more than evidence. Friend, consensus is NOT part of the scientific process. It never has been and never will. If paleontoligist are not up to date on the most recent evidence, that is one thing. If (and i emphasize if) paleontologist KNOW about duck type birds co-existing with dinosaurs, and they still hold their BELIEF, then we have a much larger problem.

Keep in mind here that my argument is not that Darwinism is false because of this finding. Only that a specific theory within Darwinism is falsified.

I don't know the consensus because I haven't seen any polling data. The overwhelming majority of science professionals are specialized. For the most part they have no details of what is going on in a particular field of study outside of their specialty. My sister-in-law is a phd in veterinary genetic research. But what does she know about forrestry research that is going on in the next building where my sister is a phd? Nothing. And vice versa. And we could say the same about my brother who is a wildlife biologist.
To their knowledge, the theory that birds are descended from dinos is still valid. You see, that is how science works. Science is right....., until it isn't. Again, science is not a thing. It is a process.

I think it is also important to point out that the fossil record is forensic science. You cannot examine the past, ever. Fossils exist in the present, not the past. We can and do make inferences about the past, but we are constrained to do that by examining the present. You cannot test and repeat the fossil record.

You didn't have to write all that just to say you don't know if there is a consensus. There is, by the way. And to suggest you are more up date on relevant information than actual paleontologists is not only presumptuous but pretty darn funny.

By all means, continue to play the part of rogue scientist, out to expose the institution as god hating Illuminati. You haven't pulled that card enough yet.

 

[Septic]

This makes no sense.

You acknowledge that microevolution (bacteria) occurs and that macroevolution (all dogs and wolves have a common ancestor) occurs but reject such natural biological laws when it comes homo sapiens.

The natural laws which govern biology would apply to all biology; not just the biology of your choosing.

Don't bother. He thinks evolution means chickens birthing dogs.

 

[FLVOL69]

If you've kept reading the thread, you've seen that the point of the analogy proves that consensus does not dictate truth. It was an analogy to point out the fallacy in appeals to authority/agreement.

Thank you. Have a nice day. :hi:

You'll have to forgive him, he's still trying to master english.

 

[Roustabout]

You didn't have to write all that just to say you don't know if there is a consensus. There is, by the way. And to suggest you are more up date on relevant information than actual paleontologists is not only presumptuous but pretty darn funny.

By all means, continue to play the part of rogue scientist, out to expose the institution as god hating Illuminati. You haven't pulled that card enough yet.

I didn't. And its clear that you are avoiding the implications of the evidence. First, you've yet to provide any evidence of a consensus. And for some reason you seem intent on defending an untenable position. To top it off you are resorting to juvenile debate tactics.

Either the evidence I've referenced is out there or it isn't. If not it should be easy for you to punk me on this.

 

[Septic]

I didn't. And its clear that you are avoiding the implications of the evidence. First, you've yet to provide any evidence of a consensus. And for some reason you seem intent on defending an untenable position. To top it off you are resorting to juvenile debate tactics.

Either the evidence I've referenced is out there or it isn't. If not it should be easy for you to punk me on this.

Why would anyone bother providing you evidence of scientific consensus when you'll certainly dismiss it as a appeal to authority?

 

[Vol8188]

Does Mav know you got pics of his cousin?

No way that's his cousin, has too many teeth.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Sorry PKT, but now you are playing fast and loose with the definitions. What laws are at work, and what are you claiming as macro? Common ancestory among canines does not example macroevolution. The diversity in canines is due to a loss of information. There is nothing among the ancestory of canines that shows new genetic information being formed to result in a new class of animal. Nothing here accounts for the existance of the canine genetic code in the first place.

Through observation we can see how breeding has selected for certain traits. The key though is that the traits ALREADY exist.

What you refer to is the opposite of the evidence that is NECESSARY for molecules to man evolution.

"Laws" are the natural laws which govern the universe whether it be physics, chemistry, biology, etc.

I don't make a distinction between "macro" or "micro" evolution (I only referenced those terms because others use those terms). Evolution is evolution no matter the scale.

As for your comments about genetics, I am not sure what the hell you are talking about. My girlfriend's three pound Yorkie has different phenotype traits than my sister's eighty pound boxers. This would be because they have different genotypes. I have no idea how they could not have "new" genetic information. If they had no "new" or different genetic codes, they would be the same as their ancestor. If you think the phenotype traits, thus the genotype information also of the Yokie already existed before it was bred, I am at a lost of words.

 

[Roustabout]

Why would anyone bother providing you evidence of scientific consensus when you'll certainly dismiss it as a appeal to authority?

He made a truth claim. I simply asked him to back it up. Plus if he is right then it would certainly make for interesting discussion as to why paleontologist would hold to bird to dino evolution when the evidence contradicts this position.

You do understand that the evidence is presented by the secular scientific community, right?

You guys are incorrigible.

 

[Septic]

I didn't. And its clear that you are avoiding the implications of the evidence. First, you've yet to provide any evidence of a consensus. And for some reason you seem intent on defending an untenable position. To top it off you are resorting to juvenile debate tactics.

Either the evidence I've referenced is out there or it isn't. If not it should be easy for you to punk me on this.

Are you arguing that Darwinian Evolution is wrong or are you just going to argue against arguments?

If the former, then what this boils down to is you making arguments against evolutionary evidence based on... what exactly? Are you a biologist that is an expert on evolution? May I see your research - or are you just going to dance around the tired appeal to authority reply and discount what an overwhelming number of experts have found to be the most plausible explanation?

I suspect the latter, most creationists would rather opine about the leaves when the conversation is about the tree.

 

[Septic]

He made a truth claim. I simply asked him to back it up. Plus if he is right then it would certainly make for interesting discussion as to why paleontologist would hold to bird to dino evolution when the evidence contradicts this position.

You do understand that the evidence is presented by the secular scientific community, right?

You guys are incorrigible.

I'm not familiar with that, is that a club?

 

[Roustabout]

"Laws" are the natural laws which govern the universe whether it be physics, chemistry, biology, etc.

I don't make a distinction between "macro" or "micro" evolution (I only referenced those terms because others use those terms). Evolution is evolution no matter the scale.

As for your comments about goenetics, I am not sure what the hell you are talking about. My girlfriend's three pound Yorkie has different phenotype traits than my sister's eighty pound boxers. This would be because they have different genotypes. I have no idea how they could not have "new" genetic information. If they had no "new" or different genetic codes, they would be the same as their ancestor. If you think the phenotype traits, thus the genotype information also of the Yokie already existed before it was bred, I am at a lost of words.

Now you've just redefined new. This is basic genetics. On the same line we could say that I have new genetic info compared to my parents. But we both know that this isn't what I'm talking about. You are conflating the terms to suit your argument and to be frank its deceptive. Redefining the terms in the middle of an argument is classic moving of the goal posts.