Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Absolutely..the fact you exist is clear evidence that you evolved from a fish.
Alex
Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Jan this is a good video if you ignore the references to a designer. Very short.
Alex
Alex
Actually the evidence shows you as the liar...or perhaps you are just stupid...or maybe demented and have trouble remembering?
Which is it Jan? Lying, stupid or demented?
Poor Jan, science has destroyed his ego, he can no longer be the special creation of God so he must deny, deny and deny again anything that reminds him of this failure of faith and project it onto others so he can feel good about himself.
Sure Jan, and again, you'll wake up tomorrow morning and all will be the same as is....Darwinism and the theory of evolution will still be fact, and Jan will still be either a liar, stupid or demented, just as I have shown above.Well you certainly are incapable of explaining what the evidence was that made you accept darwinism as a scientific fact. All you could was show writings of people saying there is evidence of darwinism.
Suppose it must be a scientific fact then
Don’t have to deny it.
There’s nothing to accept or deny.
Plus, unless you’re an explicit, it’s not even worth believing.
The Emperor is as naked as the day that he was born Paddo. There is no evidence that shows darwinism to be a scientific fact. We both know it.
Take it easy Son, you'll dig yourself all the way to China.
ps: And by the way, the incident I have just shown re your nonsensical redefining, is only recent, yesterday, and I certainly have not done any search for your other redefinings. You are simply not worth the time, and anyway, those that have contributed to this thread, are well aware of your many undesirable, christian like IDer "qualities"
You need me to list them again?
Jan Ardena:
I posted several posts above whose content directly addresses claims you have made and points you have raised.
Your dishonesty in ignoring what I post has been apparent for some time now. At this point, you're essentially a troll.
You are trolling.
You are trolling.
You are trolling.
You are trolling.
I posted several posts above whose content directly addresses claims you have made and points you have raised.
Your dishonesty in ignoring what I post has been apparent for some time now. At this point, you're essentially a troll.
As you are well aware, we have discussed why I personally accept the theory of evolution in the past. Moreover, I addressed that specific issue just a few posts above your one.
You are trolling.
I specifically addressed the difference between a scientific theory and a religion in previous posts.
You are trolling.
Nothing I posted above is irrational and you know it.
You are trolling.
I posted a number of points that invite discussion above. Your response was to ignore them all and post this.
You are trolling.
Trolling.
Oh, so now Jan knows better than "many science students on college campus", despite the fact that Jan knows next to nothing about science, and I'm willing to bet he has no formal training in science at tertiary level.
Last edited:
Here's some reading to get you started:
Evolution as fact and theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
Evidence for evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
29 evidences for macroevolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Evidence for evolution factsheet: https://www.coolaustralia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Evidence-for-evolution-factsheet.pdf
Evidence for evolution (PBS library): https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/index.html
Evolution: 5 lines of evidence (Medium): https://medium.com/your-science/evolution-5-lines-of-evidence-2bdb72274cc1
Evidence for evolution in response to natural selection in a contemporary human population (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America): https://www.pnas.org/content/108/41/17040
Evolution (Encylopaedia Brittannica): https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory
15 answers to creationist nonsense (Scientific American): https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
Understanding evolution (Berkeley): https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
What is the evidence for evolution (Biologos): https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-the-evidence-for-evolution
What is Darwin's theory of evolution (Livescience): https://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html
Human evolution evidence (Smithsonian): http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
Evidence for evoluton (Bioninja): http://www.vce.bioninja.com.au/aos-4-change-over-time/evolution/evidence-for-evolution.html
Evidence for evolution (New England Complex Systems Institute): https://necsi.edu/evidence-for-evolution
Evidence for evolution (Khan Academy): https://www.khanacademy.org/science...l-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution
Evidence of common descent (wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
---
These were found with a 30 second google search. They are all reputable sources.
How long can you bury your head in the sand, Jan?
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
James R,
Aside from simply accepting what is read, how is the layperson supposed to know it is a scientific fact?
Remember millions of laypersons totally believe it is scientific fact. People like Alex, and Paddoboy. They can’t explain why it is a fact, most probably because they don’t know it is.
Neither of them have access to any evidence.
So rather than just showing sites where it is already assumed it is fact, so no need to break out any layman details. Just cut to the chase and show the knockdown explanations that actually show it to be scientific fact.
Or, are you telling me, that in order to see it, one has to get an advanced education in biology.
Meaning that the truth only becomes accessible to the educated elite, and the rest of us have to just believe them.
Aside from simply accepting what is read, how is the layperson supposed to know it is a scientific fact?
Remember millions of laypersons totally believe it is scientific fact. People like Alex, and Paddoboy. They can’t explain why it is a fact, most probably because they don’t know it is.
Neither of them have access to any evidence.
So rather than just showing sites where it is already assumed it is fact, so no need to break out any layman details. Just cut to the chase and show the knockdown explanations that actually show it to be scientific fact.
Or, are you telling me, that in order to see it, one has to get an advanced education in biology.
Meaning that the truth only becomes accessible to the educated elite, and the rest of us have to just believe them.
Alex!Actually James I think his head is buried in something other than sand
Alex
You get my Stabber in the Backer award.
Congratulations!
I’ve been discussing this with you for years James. I can predict how you are going to respond. Exactly like how you have.
How is it that people who accept it as a fact, but cannot explain why it is, are not classed as ignorant.
Does believing it is a fact, mean you automatically know why it is?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I am thrilled.Alex!
You get my Stabber in the Backer award.
Congratulations!
But how did you know I meant that your head was buried in the bible.
Alex
I didn’t.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Have you been reading between the lines again?
What did you think of the video?
Is there something in it you would care to discuss?
Alex
The same way you come to know any fact. You evaluate the presented arguments and evidence in light of everything else you know about the world. You read critically and try to work out whether the evidence and the conclusions that follow from it are reasonable and logical. Where there is controversy, you evaluate both sides of the argument and come to a conclusion (which may be provisional).
There is always an element of trust involved if you have to rely on expert opinion rather than your own direct experience or research, and the truth is that in many matters these days most of us have no option but to rely on the experts in a field. The alternative is to reject the best expert opinions and believe something for no good reason (e.g. just because it "feels right" to you). If you're an expert yourself, of course, this doesn't apply. You can argue matters out with other experts.
When it comes to you, specifically, Jan, it is quite apparent that you have double standards. You regurgitate arguments from Creationist websites and sources. The impression I get is that those sources are the only thing you've consulted on the topic of evolution. I gave you a long list of reputable expert sources above, but I doubt you'll actually spend any time reading them.
You must realise that it is dishonest of you to deny that there is evidence for "Darwinian evolution" (i.e. evolution by natural selection). You cannot, at this point, be unaware that there are literally thousands of sources where you can learn about the evidence that the experts have gathered. Sure, you can deny it all. You can assert that all the scientific experts are wrong and your Creationist sources are right. You can ignore all of the debunkings of the creationist arguments by the scientific experts. That's your prerogative. But it amounts to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "La la la! I can't hear you!"
Wrong. They have the same access to the evidence that you have. The difference is that you ignore the scientific literature in favour of Creationist literature that you believe meshes more closely with your religious ideology.
The only thing that is blocking you from learning about evolution is yourself, and the reason you are blocked is that you feel that learning about the theory would threaten your religious convictions. Perhaps you are unable to see this from inside the bubble, but it is clear as day from outside.
I don’t think you’ve read everything on here James. Otherwise you wouldn’t just dish out that accusation to me alone.
You think because I regard darwinism as a religion, that I am being disrespectful. But you ignore all the disrespect that has been thrown my way.
Your role is to moderate, not discriminate against the side that doesn’t agree with you.
People here pretend to know science, and that darwinism is a scientific fact. Because know one can actually explain what makes it a scientific fact for them. They simply refer to a site that just assumes it it is fact. That’s not an explanation.
If I simply quoted scripture every time we talked about God. You would accuse me of preaching or evangelising. Yet everyone here gets away with it.
Also there plenty of scientists who do not agree with the darwinian model. So how can it be a scientific fact?
Jan Ardena:
The fact is, Jan, that some of the people here are employed in scientific professions. There are trained scientists here. There are trained educators. There are professionals here whose daily work employs science that they have studied at tertiary level. These people know science, Jan.
As for the "scientific fact" thing, that's a distraction. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, just like the theory of gravity or the theory of electromagnetism. As such, it is a body of established knowledge that has proven itself time and again to be a useful and powerful explanatory and predictive mechanism. All of those theories have led to advances in technology, in understanding of the world, and all have had applications across many different disciplines. Whether you want to call them "facts" or "theories" is really just a distracting argument about nothing important. Do scientific theories count as scientific facts? You can decide. It doesn't change anything important. Everything important in science is a theory.
A much better distinction to make is the one between hypothesis and theory. The difference there is that theories are very well confirmed with evidence (see, for example, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution and the theory of electromagnetism). Hypotheses, on the other hand, may turn out to be confirmed or disconfirmed; usually what is needed is more evidence for or against.
About 97% of working scientists "agree with" the theory of evolution. The 3% who do not (almost invariably religious) may be "plenty" for you, but they are a small minority.
Among Americans, according to a 2015 Pew poll, 65% of people accept evolution. Realise, though, that the US is an outlier among first world nations in this regard.
An important statistic from the same poll is that 75% of college graduates accept evolution, and 81% who have post-graduate qualifications. In comparison, only 56% of those with a high school diploma or less accept it.
Similarly, when people's general scientific knowledge was tested, it turned out that 76% of people with good scientific knowledge accepted evolution, compared with 54% of those with less scientific knowledge.
Then consider the influence of religion. This is an even bigger effect than education. Of religiously unaffiliated people, 86% accept evolution, with 67% saying it occurred entirely naturally. In comparison, 59% of those with a religion accept evolution, and only 26% of those people agree that evolution occurs by entirely natural processes. If you're evangelical rather than mainstream, the likelihood of your accepting evolution is lower.
The perception of how many scientists accept evolution is another interesting statistic from the poll. Only 66% of polled Americans think that scientists generally agree that human beings evolved over time. (Compare the 97% figure from the poll of scientists.)
Where do you fit in all that, Jan? We know your religion is one reason you don't believe in evolution. A lack of scientific education is also apparent. I don't know what your overall education was like, but can say that your views make it less likely that you have a graduate or post-graduate degree. If you're also a conservative voter, that's another factor that would correlate with your evolution denial.
In other words, there are several obvious factors and some potential factors that may mean it will be an uphill battle for you to overcome your prejudice against learning about evolution.
I don't read every single post on sciforums. But I think I read enough to have a pretty good idea about what goes on here. I certainly read most of the reports.
Respect is something that is earned, Jan, and respect is something that can be lost. When you ignore what people say and continue to repeat debunked claims, when you repeated make knowledge claims unsupported by anything other than your own beliefs, when you act like a troll, a loss of respect is a predictable outcome.
I agree. Earlier today, I warned you for trolling. That warning has nothing to do with my disagreement with your "side" of the argument (evolution is a religion, there's no evidence for evolution, God is real, etc. etc.). It's a warning based entirely on your behaviour in trying bait people in various ways characteristic of trolls. The contentless, personal posts are a dead giveaway when it comes to that.
People in general, or specific people?
The fact is, Jan, that some of the people here are employed in scientific professions. There are trained scientists here. There are trained educators. There are professionals here whose daily work employs science that they have studied at tertiary level. These people know science, Jan.
As for the "scientific fact" thing, that's a distraction. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, just like the theory of gravity or the theory of electromagnetism. As such, it is a body of established knowledge that has proven itself time and again to be a useful and powerful explanatory and predictive mechanism. All of those theories have led to advances in technology, in understanding of the world, and all have had applications across many different disciplines. Whether you want to call them "facts" or "theories" is really just a distracting argument about nothing important. Do scientific theories count as scientific facts? You can decide. It doesn't change anything important. Everything important in science is a theory.
A much better distinction to make is the one between hypothesis and theory. The difference there is that theories are very well confirmed with evidence (see, for example, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution and the theory of electromagnetism). Hypotheses, on the other hand, may turn out to be confirmed or disconfirmed; usually what is needed is more evidence for or against.
I have no problem with you talking about scripture in the Religion forum. Quoting large slabs of it, and presenting it as if it is unquestionably true is a different matter. We have a rule set that covers these things. I don't think you have ever been warned in regards to that kind of thing, so a fair assumption is that you're staying on the right side of the line with that, so far.
No, not really. I guess it depends on what you mean as "plenty". A few creationist mavericks who are driven by their religious ideology like you are might be plenty for you, but those people are on the fringes. Also, mostly it turns out that the creationists who present themselves as experts in evolution are not well-qualified when you look into it.
About 97% of working scientists "agree with" the theory of evolution. The 3% who do not (almost invariably religious) may be "plenty" for you, but they are a small minority.
Among Americans, according to a 2015 Pew poll, 65% of people accept evolution. Realise, though, that the US is an outlier among first world nations in this regard.
An important statistic from the same poll is that 75% of college graduates accept evolution, and 81% who have post-graduate qualifications. In comparison, only 56% of those with a high school diploma or less accept it.
Similarly, when people's general scientific knowledge was tested, it turned out that 76% of people with good scientific knowledge accepted evolution, compared with 54% of those with less scientific knowledge.
Then consider the influence of religion. This is an even bigger effect than education. Of religiously unaffiliated people, 86% accept evolution, with 67% saying it occurred entirely naturally. In comparison, 59% of those with a religion accept evolution, and only 26% of those people agree that evolution occurs by entirely natural processes. If you're evangelical rather than mainstream, the likelihood of your accepting evolution is lower.
The perception of how many scientists accept evolution is another interesting statistic from the poll. Only 66% of polled Americans think that scientists generally agree that human beings evolved over time. (Compare the 97% figure from the poll of scientists.)
Where do you fit in all that, Jan? We know your religion is one reason you don't believe in evolution. A lack of scientific education is also apparent. I don't know what your overall education was like, but can say that your views make it less likely that you have a graduate or post-graduate degree. If you're also a conservative voter, that's another factor that would correlate with your evolution denial.
In other words, there are several obvious factors and some potential factors that may mean it will be an uphill battle for you to overcome your prejudice against learning about evolution.
I've already shown that you are a liar or suffer from dementia. The above is another incident that I have given an explanation for.Aside from simply accepting what is read, how is the layperson supposed to know it is a scientific fact?
Remember millions of laypersons totally believe it is scientific fact. People like Alex, and Paddoboy. They can’t explain why it is a fact, most probably because they don’t know it is.
Neither of them have access to any evidence.
So rather than just showing sites where it is already assumed it is fact, so no need to break out any layman details. Just cut to the chase and show the knockdown explanations that actually show it to be scientific fact.
Or, are you telling me, that in order to see it, one has to get an advanced education in biology.
Meaning that the truth only becomes accessible to the educated elite, and the rest of us have to just believe them.
I have openly admitted that I am no expert on Darwinism or the theory of evolution, but have read with great interest reputable accounts. I have also compared it to being told by a specialist who no doubt would have discussed it with other specialists as well as your GP about any pending operation you may need under the possibility of death if you didn't have it.
All you are doing is ignoring the experts because those experts have already shown Darwinism and the theory of evolution over extended periods to be fact.
All your comments show, is that your arse is further against the brick wall then once thought.
Contrary to popular belief, I have read most of what you put forward. Most of them have been here for years, like the talk origin one.
I don’t see any facts. It is presumed to be a fact.
The presumptions cannot be tested, or observed. A lot of it doesn’t make sense. Not only to myself, but most other people.
When it comes to explanations, the goalpost shifting is through the roof.
What I do comprehend, isn’t evidence, it’s an explanation of existing evidence. Which funnily enough, every person I know, understands on some level.
At what level do you think everyone will be able to comprehend it, the same way they comprehend evolution (micro)?
In this case it is just faith, because there is no way we can really know. There is no intuition either. In short, there is nothing that connects us to darwinism. It is purely intellectual.
Here’s another reason I sort of got tired of discussing with you. You’re always trying to sum me up. Most of the time you are mistaken. And when I try to tell you that, you just carry on with with the mistaken idea. It’s tedious.
Why not just discuss the whatever we’re discussing, and leave out psychoanalysis?
I’m totes aware of everything you send.
Remember we’ve been on here for years and years. It’s all basically the same bog standard presumptions. I don’t know how anyone can read them then know that it is a fact, without just believe what they have read is true.
I don’t believe people on the basis that they are an expert, unless it essential, and I don’t have a choice. Darwinism isn’t essential for me, and I don’t have to believe in it. I’m just curious why so many people think it is a science fact.
I don’t think there is evidence. I’m sorry if that is offensive, but I am being totally honest.
There is nothing that has been presented, where I have to admit, (even to myself)that it is evidence.
But I think I know where the idea of the theory of evolution came from. If I can find the source, I will definitely create a new thread for discussion.
Here you go again, telling me where and howls I get information.
Why don’t you leave me out of it?
You have everyone here thinking it’s alright to ignore what I say, and just start making stuff up. As a mod you should set some kind of example. Shouldn’t you?
But in response to the quote.
You presume all scientists accept the theory.
I’m afraid you’re mistaken,
There you go again.
Try and leave me out of it.
Because you do not know what you’re talking about.
Last edited:
- Status