"Evolution isn't science"

[Dr Adequate]

How come if I quote a creationist site I am slammed, but you can quote all the evolutionist that you want and it is ok?

Because, as we have demonstrated, the creationists are lying.

We don't "slam" you for quoting "creationist websites", but for quoting halfwitted lies, without taking five minutes to find out whether these people are telling the truth.

Let me give you one example out of dozens:

http://pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc10.htm

Student: But prof, what about the Neanderthals? They are supposed to be the ones we most recently evolved from ...

This is a flat lie. No-one claims that we are evolved from Neanderthals. The website you cited is lying to you.

It's as absurd and stupid a lie as though I said "creationists claim that the world was made by a dog in six ways" (rather than "by God in six days").

When it comes to the simple question of what evolutionists claim, the evolutionists are, by definition, right: they claim what they claim they claim. If some creationist website claims that evolutionists claim something they don't claim, this is a lie.

 

[Dr Adequate]

gosh, its crazy that people would read that and then try to make it out of context. Only seriously dishonest individuals would do that.

But of course jesus freak hasn't read the Origin of Species, nor indeed a basic textbook on biology. All he knows about evolution, poor sucker, is what creationist liars have told him.

 

[Belz...]

Before the flood, there was no rain. The earth was covered by a thick cloud cover and it was always warm and just humid enough. (This one has an enormous amount of scientific problems, but let's move on.) Most of the water was underground.

Still don't know WHERE they got that. I think creationists operate using the 12th century definition of "proof". 12th Century BC, that is.

 

[geoman]

How come if I quote a creationist site I am slammed, but you can quote all the evolutionist that you want and it is ok?

Because half the time you cite sites which don't get the data right even when to do so would be in their favour.

...
• A 1986 dacite lava dome at Mt St Helens volcano gave a (K-Ar) "date" of method as 0.35 ± 0.5 million years old. See Radio-dating in rubble.
...

I know a bit about K-Ar dating (and basic maths) & this seemed entirely reasonable. 0.35 ± 0.5Ma IS 1986...or next Wednesday...or 0.85Ma BP. So why is this such a good argument against K-Ar dating? I looked up a fairly primary source (not the original paper) and the actual error bar for this is ±0.05Ma. So the authors of your quote were so busy criticising Science that they couldn't even be bothered to write down the numbers right, and didn't realise that this completely invalidated their argument. What does that say about their competence to judge the method?

And of course that's another big bonus of science...we quote our errors. We tell each other how wrong we could be.

 

[Belz...]

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree

Reading comprehension 101:

"...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

And as Wavicle showed, you were not mistaken in taking the quote out of context. You were deliberatly misrepresenting what Darwin said, which makes you a liar. Of course, nothing could surprise me less.

And ignorance will not be a cop-out, this time. With the internet at your disposal, you have no excuse for this behaviour.

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups."

Nice. Any other gems like that ? Because we have litterally thousands from creationists who can barely tie their shoelaces.

There are no links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to birds and mammals. There are no links whatsoever.

Whatever you say, Freak.

How come if I quote a creationist site I am slammed, but you can quote all the evolutionist that you want and it is ok?

"How come reality always wins ? No fair."


Something I don't understand about creationists, is that they hate science only when it contradicts their views, but try to use it otherwise to demonstrate those views, because science, we can tell, works. No one in their right mind can say it doesn't because computers, for example, wouldn't be possible without it. No one can say "science is worthless" with a straight face. But pick one part of it they don't like, and they say it "isn't science". What a comfortable fantasy contradiction world these people live in.

 

[sphenisc]

I know a bit about K-Ar dating (and basic maths) & this seemed entirely reasonable. 0.35 ± 0.5Ma IS 1986...or next Wednesday...or 0.85Ma BP. So why is this such a good argument against K-Ar dating? I looked up a fairly primary source (not the original paper) and the actual error bar for this is ±0.05Ma.

Can you provide your source? Thanks.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

There are no links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to birds and mammals. There are no links whatsoever. I am still waiting for an answer to this or are we just going to skip over it?

I refer you to an earlier post of mine.

Jesus_freak. I have two words for you, Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik. I am curious jf as to what you think both of these specimines are. If you are unfamiliar with either of these wikipedia should suffice.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Reading comprehension 101:

"...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

And as Wavicle showed, you were not mistaken in taking the quote out of context. You were deliberatly misrepresenting what Darwin said, which makes you a liar. Of course, nothing could surprise me less.

And ignorance will not be a cop-out, this time. With the internet at your disposal, you have no excuse for this behaviour.

Hold on, hold on. It is true that he could have corrected his mistake by spending a couple of minutes on the Internet.

But his failure to do so doesn't make him a liar, he's just gullible and lazy.

You know the difference between "immoral" and "amoral"? In the same way, jesus freak is not insincere, he's merely asincere. It's not that he's deliberately lying, it's just that he can't be bothered to tell the truth.

 

[Mosquito]

Hold on, hold on. It is true that he could have corrected his mistake by spending a couple of minutes on the Internet.

But his failure to do so doesn't make him a liar, he's just gullible and lazy.

You know the difference between "immoral" and "amoral"? In the same way, jesus freak is not insincere, he's merely asincere. It's not that he's deliberately lying, it's just that he can't be bothered to tell the truth.

I agree with you, and just wanted to add that lying is a consious act. It is the act of deception. The opposite of "lies" are not "truths" but "honesties" (is that a word?) The opposite of "truths" is "falsehoods".

We don't really know if JF is lying or not. I think he isn't. He is behaving very similar to other fundamentalists/CTists and they really believe. They are telling falsehoods, but they are not lying.

Their sources are a completely different matter though, and plenty of *those* are liars.

So we really should not call JF a liar until he is caught actually lying. Which he may have been for all I know. Evidence of this should of course be provided

Mosquito - Being ignorant is not a crime, spreading it is

 

[aggle-rithm]

Hold on, hold on. It is true that he could have corrected his mistake by spending a couple of minutes on the Internet.

But his failure to do so doesn't make him a liar, he's just gullible and lazy.

You know the difference between "immoral" and "amoral"? In the same way, jesus freak is not insincere, he's merely asincere. It's not that he's deliberately lying, it's just that he can't be bothered to tell the truth.

"Asincere". Gotta remember that.

 

[Cuddles]

Hold on, hold on. It is true that he could have corrected his mistake by spending a couple of minutes on the Internet.

But his failure to do so doesn't make him a liar, he's just gullible and lazy.

You know the difference between "immoral" and "amoral"? In the same way, jesus freak is not insincere, he's merely asincere. It's not that he's deliberately lying, it's just that he can't be bothered to tell the truth.

On the other hand, after the first few posts correcting some of his errors, any further comments he made on those subjects were made with full knowledge that he was wrong. While he may not have been lying to start with, he certainly is now if he continues with the same arguments.

 

[Belz...]

You know the difference between "immoral" and "amoral"? In the same way, jesus freak is not insincere, he's merely asincere. It's not that he's deliberately lying, it's just that he can't be bothered to tell the truth.

In my book that's close enough to be lumped together.

 

[Buckaroo]

On the other hand, after the first few posts correcting some of his errors, any further comments he made on those subjects were made with full knowledge that he was wrong. While he may not have been lying to start with, he certainly is now if he continues with the same arguments.

I think the problem is that he probably isn't even fully reading our posts, and doesn't realize that his "arguments" have been utterly demolished. That, or he HAS read them, but his reading comprehension skills simply aren't up to a basic level of competence. That, or he HAS read them and DOES understand them, but has a mild form of schizophrenia that prevents reality from sinking in. Which is it, JF?

'Course, given my choices above, I probably shouldn't expect an answer.

 

[flume]

There have been some great posts in this string. And they cover a lot of material. Jesus-Freak, please take the time to read through these posts carefully . And then think about them. And then read them again. And read some of the links. And think some more before you start to answer.
And then read some of the posts again.

 

[Belz...]

String, thread. All the same.

 

[articulett]

There are no links of plant to animal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to birds and mammals. There are no links whatsoever. I am still waiting for an answer to this or are we just going to skip over it?

Wow, once they get you to believe that you have to believe a certain story to live happily ever after, they can just dump any crap directly into your brain.

If the people who were telling you this crap were lying--would you want to know? I mean you can see the evidence for yourself. You might want to do it, before you become even more brainwashed... I think something really bad happens to a brain when you tell it that it can suffer forever for not believe the most unbelievable story and then tell it that a barbaric and poorly written text was authored by an all loving, all-knowing, invisible entity that is indestinguishable from imaginary friends.

Do you know that your book isn't the only one with a creation story supposedly written by the creator of the universe? Do you know these other stories also say that people who don't believe the stories will anguish forever? What's a person to do? Say, why not follow the evidence. Scientists dismiss your silliness along with Muslim Silliness and Amish silliness (who think that the world is flat and that one shouldn't be on the internet...but, instead should be reading the bible...)

I think your fellow fundies might suggest that it's better for you to prepare for the rapture than dealing with intellectuals who are all interested in things like facts and who don't really care who believes what.

The nice thing about the facts is that they are the same for everybody. Your story has less evidence behind it than Scientology. At least they don't think Dinosaurs and humans were alive at the same time.

Perhaps you ought to flog your indoctrinators for making you horrifically stupid.

 

[articulett]

There have been some great posts in this string. And they cover a lot of material. Jesus-Freak, please take the time to read through these posts carefully . And then think about them. And then read them again. And read some of the links. And think some more before you start to answer.
And then read some of the posts again.

The fundies just cut, paste, post, and run. It brainwashed them, and for some reason they think it will do the same to others. Wow. I think he/she/it doesn't read lest he/she/it bite from the tree of knowledge.

 

[articulett]

Something I don't understand about creationists, is that they hate science only when it contradicts their views, but try to use it otherwise to demonstrate those views, because science, we can tell, works. No one in their right mind can say it doesn't because computers, for example, wouldn't be possible without it. No one can say "science is worthless" with a straight face. But pick one part of it they don't like, and they say it "isn't science". What a comfortable fantasy contradiction world these people live in.

Yep--They have no standards at all for just accepting whatever it is their preacher man says or what an old book means, but they want video evidence of evolution in action as well as a fully assembled puzzles of every critter along the path.

Amazing. They take paternity tests not realizing that we are using the very same stuff that makes it quite obvious how true evolution is. We see what Darwin could only imagine.

 

[articulett]

Hold on, hold on. It is true that he could have corrected his mistake by spending a couple of minutes on the Internet.

But his failure to do so doesn't make him a liar, he's just gullible and lazy.

You know the difference between "immoral" and "amoral"? In the same way, jesus freak is not insincere, he's merely asincere. It's not that he's deliberately lying, it's just that he can't be bothered to tell the truth.

Lying for Jesus, eh?

What goes on in the fundie mind when Time Magazine and National Geographic have pictures of the Dikika baby (3.3. million year old a. afarensis)--or the fish with feet that we use on the Darwin symbol--Do they think the Smithsonian, Time Magazine, National Geographic, Biology Teachers, Newspapers, and the whole rest of the educated world is part of some conspiracy? Deceived. Do they just not know the about the abundance of accumulating evidence because they don't look--afraid to bite from the "tree of knowledge" maybe? They've been brainwashed to believe that faith and feelings are good ways to know truths? Do they think all this evidence is planted by the devil or do they just not see it--they've learned to live in their brainwashed world with their blinders on?

And how does one deprogram someone who thinks that faith rather than facts are a good way to know stuff. It doesn't seem like reason and reality have a chance with that kind of mental illness. It's amazing what you can get people to believe if you promise them everlasting goodies and threaten them with everlasting pain.

 

[Belz...]

Amazing. They take paternity tests not realizing that we are using the very same stuff that makes it quite obvious how true evolution is. We see what Darwin could only imagine.

Like I said. They've conditioned themselves to accept contradiction and magic so blindly that they have become suspicious of thought, logic and reason.