Denial of Evolution VI.

[Randwolf]

What I find interesting is that leopold has never provided any substantiation for any of his claims. The articles have always been 'hacked' or there's a cover up, and he can never find his copies of the 'original'.

Amazing isn't it?

What I don't get is why any moderately intelligent person even attempts to refute evolutionary theory. Compared to some of the more esoteric and even arcane scientific theories and hypotheses out there, the basics of evolution are downright elementary to grasp. There is so much evidence and so many examples to draw on I just don't see why it's so difficult to understand. Faith in denial knows no bounds I suppose...

 

[Trippy]

Origin: Mammals are more complex than reptiles or dinosaurs.They are warm blooded rather than cold blooded. They seem to have a higher level of consciousness or self awareness.

BTW: Dinosaurs existed for about 150 million years & the last of them seemed no smarter than the early ones. Intelligence seems to be an evolutionary fluke rather than an inevitability.

There's increasing amounts of evidence to sugges that at least some Dinosaurs were warm blooded.

 

[Trippy]

There is so much bullshit in your posts that it makes my nose hurt to read them. But you keep harping on this one gigantic turd.

Fraggle, have I ever told you just how much I love you (in a completely plutonic way of course) and your turns of phrase?

 

[Trippy]

Just because it is, perhaps, the coolest fossil I have seen for a very long time.

Gastropod fossilization by emeraldization:

From the Matacana Mine, Mun. de Gachalá, Guavió-Guatéque Mining District, Cundinamarca Department, Colombia.

It also happens to illustrate another reason why the fossil record is incomplete.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Amazing isn't it? What I don't get is why any moderately intelligent person even attempts to refute evolutionary theory.

It's because it gainsays the very first chapter in the Torah, or "Bible" as Christians call it. Cognitive dissonance is a well-known phenomenon, but I'm not sure anyone's studied it enough to know how widely it's spread. There are clearly great numbers of people who identify as Christians yet are capable of exceptionally rational thought when the topic at hand does not argue with their Holy Book.

What's sad is that the leaders of all the major Abrahamic sects have made the pronouncement that most of what's in the Bible is metaphor. The Jesuits have been teaching evolution in their universities for decades. The Pope and the other Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders want their people to believe in God because even if he too is just a metaphor, this belief helps their followers become better citizens. (Or at least that's the party line for anyone who hasn't read about the Taliban, the Westboro Baptists, or the theocrats in Israel.) But they don't find it necessary for their people to believe in a flat earth or the six-day creation.

Compared to some of the more esoteric and even arcane scientific theories and hypotheses out there, the basics of evolution are downright elementary to grasp. There is so much evidence and so many examples to draw on I just don't see why it's so difficult to understand. Faith in denial knows no bounds I suppose...

But none of them are as threatening as evolution. Evolution is for our Christians what heliocentricity was for the Christians of Galileo's day. Even though they all know that Christianity survived heliocentricity, they're worried that it won't survive evolution.

Perhaps they just don't have enough faith.

Fraggle, have I ever told you just how much I love you (in a completely plutonic way of course) and your turns of phrase?

I do, after all, make a living as a writer. Of course I don't get to write this way in software user manuals.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

There's increasing amounts of evidence to suggest that at least some Dinosaurs were warm blooded.

I'm pretty sure the ones with feathers were warm blooded. At least the ones with feathers around today are.

 

[leopold]

@Leopold

I've read a few of your posts and it seems you're trying to use absence of sufficient "transitional" fossils to "prove" that evolution theory is wrong, correct?

no.

Here's another prognostication: Leopold will continue to deny, deny, deny without any logical refutation. He will stick to his myopic and deluded viewpoint no matter what evidence is presented.

it isn't me that is saying this stuff.
maybe you should read the thread to find out who is.

 

[leopold]

There is so much bullshit in your posts that it makes my nose hurt to read them. But you keep harping on this one gigantic turd.

i haven't seen your interpretation of the article anywhere in this thread fraggle.
so tell us, why did they conclude it was a clear no?
remember, these are experts, the publication well respected.

 

[Daybreak]

In circles, we could all become Steve Urkles,
but what bridges the nose and stitches my toes
is the way we communicate
For God sake can we not shake
such feverish group proclamations
Denial based off denial
all the while stymied education

 

[AlexG]

so tell us, why did they conclude it was a clear no?

This is what leopold keeps claiming, yet when asked to show it, his excuses are 'the article was hacked', ' I can't find my original copy', yada yada yada.

When actual copies and quotes are produced which clearly show him to be lying, he claims that they're false.

How has he gone 15,000+ posts without being banned for intellectual dishonesty?

 

[leopold]

What I find interesting is that leopold has never provided any substantiation for any of his claims. The articles have always been 'hacked' or there's a cover up, and he can never find his copies of the 'original'.

i have you on ignore alex but view some of your posts such as this one.
the article has been posted, one of the admins has a copy of it.
just go away dude.
this is typical of your posting style.

 

[leopold]

grumpy keeps saying "THEY were WRONG' and points out that scientists have been wrong before.
he is correct, scientists have indeed been wrong.
but 50 of them? ALL of them experts at this stuff.
i challenge grumpy to provide any such scenario.

 

[AlexG]

the article has been posted, one of the admins has a copy of it.

I have a copy of it, and it doesn't say what you claim it says.

 

[leopold]

i was going to look but i'm not really interested.

 

[AlexG]

i have you on ignore alex but view some of your posts such as this one.

So I join a select group which consists of about half the poster here? I'm honored.

 

[leopold]

Amazing isn't it?

What I don't get is why any moderately intelligent person even attempts to refute evolutionary theory.

this didn't start as a "denial" thread but some genius decided to make it that by renaming it.

ALL scientific theories gets periodic review, even scientific laws aren't immune.
so, what's so unusual about this thread?

 

[wellwisher]

Here is a good example of how ineffective the existing theory of evolution is for predicting the future. Based on extrapolation of the theory, from the observation of apes and the continuity with humans, the theory predicts that natural human behavior involves promiscuity.

I will use a simple rational theory which state that natural should be self sustaining and not require propping up by science and medicine, since nature does not have these mops. A real rational theory should be able to predict types of human behavior that are self sustainable even without science smoke, mirrors and mops to create an illusion for theory support.

Promiscuous behavior might be natural for apes, since apes don't use or require mops to clean up the mess. This behavior may be fun for humans, but the modern data indicates it is not sustainable for humans without mops. Therefore it is not natural for humans.

Evolutionary theory is not rational science but has had to depend on zoo keepers to create the illusion. It needs an upgrade that could have avoided this error.

Relative to evolution this data would imply a discontinuity between ape and human behaviors. We can use the rational standard of natural human behavior needs no mops, to show that evolution is not too useful when it comes to predicting a wide range of natural human behavior.

 

[Grumpy]

wellwisher

If your sexual behavior requires a mop, you're just not doing it right.

Grumpy

 

[Randwolf]

Based on extrapolation of the theory, from the observation of apes and the continuity with humans, the theory predicts that natural human behavior involves promiscuity.

It does. This is why there are so many laws and strong customs forbidding it. Because it occurs naturally. If it didn't we wouldn't need said laws and customs.

Promiscuous behavior might be natural for apes

And since humans are apes, it follows that... Can you fill in the blank wellwisher?

This behavior may be fun for humans...

May be.

...but the modern data indicates it is not sustainable for humans without mops.

WTF? Mops? Can you cite some of this "modern data" referring to mops and promiscuous behavior? Can't wait...

Relative to evolution this data would imply a discontinuity between ape and human behaviors.

No it wouldn't.

We just can't find the "transitional fossils" between today's apes and our common ancestor(s)...

 

[billvon]

Based on extrapolation of the theory, from the observation of apes and the continuity with humans, the theory predicts that natural human behavior involves promiscuity.

Which it does.

Promiscuous behavior might be natural for apes, since apes don't use or require mops to clean up the mess.

OK.

This behavior may be fun for humans, but the modern data indicates it is not sustainable for humans without mops.

Actually it is. Go to Burning Man sometime.

Therefore it is not natural for humans.

It's as natural as it gets.

Evolutionary theory is not rational science but has had to depend on zoo keepers to create the illusion.

No, it's quite rational. Irrational people, of course, cannot see that.

Relative to evolution this data would imply a discontinuity between ape and human behaviors.

Of course there is a discontinuity between ape and human behaviors. We are closely related but not the same species. Thus we might predict that ape behavior is similar to, but not identical to, human behavior. And lo and behold, it is.

We can use the rational standard of natural human behavior needs no mops, to show that evolution is not too useful when it comes to predicting a wide range of natural human behavior.

You can watch animals and predict 90% of human behavior. Watch two male pigeons trying to woo a female pigeon - then go to a bar and watch guys trying to pose for women. Watch a gorilla care for her baby - then watch a human do the same. Watch a tribe of chimps when they see an outsider - then watch a bunch of KKKers when they see a black man.