The Case for Macroevolution

295 posts / 0 new
Last post
Greensnake's picture
John 61X Breezy,

John 61X Breezy,

Which test are you going to run? You have to have some tentative mental model (the guess) before you can do any meaningful experiments. Right?

arakish's picture
And always remember what

And always remember what assume does.

Ass U Me.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
Yet despite your attempts to

Yet despite your attempts to insult those arguing with you, you are alone in denying known scientific facts in favour of superstition, while trying to pass it off as science. This lets us all know something about you.

Greensnake's picture
John 61X Breezy,

John 61X Breezy,

I'm still trying to figure out why you are so fixated on this silly point. Are you one of these people with an ego problem who cannot ever admit being wrong? You're worse than a dog with a bone! In our former debate I couldn't even get you to address the evidence! You just dug in like a tick, on some irrelevant point, and tuned everything else out.

Just about every scientist from Feynman on down understood/understands that the first hypothesis has to be an educated guess. That doesn't mean a wild guess as you seem to imply, nor are we talking about how research papers are formally written up. As Nyarlathotep noted, if you are not taking an initial guess then you must already know! Maybe John 61X Breezy already knows, but the list of great scientists that Nyarlathotep presented all took their best guesses. We have Feynman, Einstein, and all those other greats on one side of the scales; on the other side we have John 61X Breezy with his odd interpretation of science. For me it's a no-brainer. That's how science is actually done, John.

Sushisnake 's picture
@Greensnake

@Greensnake

Re: "I'm still trying to figure out why you are so fixated on this silly point"

I think "phylogenetic trees are just an hypothesis" is an extension of "the ToE is just a theory" argument. Once you explain what "theory" actually means in science, well, that objection to evolution falls over, dead, but objections to hypotheses, which are admittedly educated guesses? Someone who disputes the ToE could sit on "phylogenetic trees are just an hypothesis" for days and days, couldn't they?

David Killens's picture
Breezy's strategy is simple.

Breezy's strategy is simple. He locates what he perceives as a weakness in an argument, then builds a huge brick wall of denial around one premise. He will defend that point past the level of ridiculous embarrassment, and cling on no matter even if it is a mile over his head. Notice that with his tenacity, he has completely derailed the conversation, we are no longer discussing anything about evolution, but instead the scientific process?

The pattern is always the same, no matter what the topic.

1) Become entrenched in a position
2) Never let go, and fill the thread with many words.
3) Derail the conversation.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
1. If I'm being challenged,

1. If I'm being challenged, or am being asked to debate a point (which I rarely like to do), then 100% I'm going to locate weaknesses in the opponents arguments and attack those.

2. Seeing weaknesses in their argument makes people frustrated, so what do they do? They double-down; and if they double-down why shouldn't I double-down? Give them a pass on their weaknesses, and they won't do the same for me.

3. I don't derail conversations; conversations naturally branch out as new people join the conversation, and comment on different things. Sushisnake wanted to discuss phylogenetic trees and bird-dinosaur evolution. Cyber wanted to complain about evolutionary biologists again. Nyar wanted to argue what hypotheses are. You guys derail the conversation, and simply go down whichever tracks are more interesting.

I can't both become entrenched in a position and derail the conversation simultaneously silly lol.

CyberLN's picture
John, you wrote, “Cyber

John, you wrote, “Cyber wanted to complain about evolutionary biologists again.”

Do you consider questions a complaint?

Sheldon's picture
"100% I'm going to locate

"100% I'm going to locate weaknesses in the opponents arguments and attack those."

Like your ridiculous beliefs being based on superstitious opposition to a scientific fact that the entire scientific world has validated with almost 160 years of evidence and research you mean. Or tha fact you can't produce any objective evidence for your creationist beliefs, hell won't even cough to them because your pseudoscientific stance can only be maintained behind a lie about your motives.

Of course if you could cite a couple of scientific facts other then species evolution that you deny, that don't in any way refute any part of your religious beliefs, well that accusation would have some tangible challenge to it. However as we have all seen you prefer to tap dance between ad hominem, and evasive duplicity whenever the topic strays too close to the truth for your act to cope.

Greensnake's picture
Sheldon,

Sheldon,

As for Mr. Breezy, those who arrive at a strong belief without benefit of reason cannot be expected to abandon that belief on the basis of reason. Hence, Mr. Breezy is not moved by the obvious absurdity of his opposition to the entire scientific world based--no less--on his own poor understanding of macroevolution. I'm afraid that Mr. Breezy is not about to wake up anytime soon despite your erudite application of crystal-clear reasoning. Taking note of how he compared himself to all the great minds, he may also have delusions of grandeur. I'm afraid we are not going to convince him of anything, but we can enjoy the sport, improve our writing ability, and hone our arguments. Others, whose minds are not rusted shut, may benefit.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
The comparison between me and

The comparison between me and great minds has been made by others and not me lol. When told I'm wrong for x, y, and z, I've merely pointed out that great minds have also been accused of x, y, and z. For example, if you say I'm going against 150+ yeasr of evolution; and I point out Copernicus was up against 1,000+ years of Ptolemeic astronomy, then clearly I'm being correctly compared to Copernicus.

Sheldon's picture
"The comparison between me

"The comparison between me and great minds has been made by others and not me lol."

Not true, your claims inferred the comparison and others pointed it out, and of course no one but you made a favourable comparison, lol.

How old is the earth Breezy?

aperez241's picture
Breezy,

Breezy,

The small difference between you and Copernicus is that he had a different model that was better at explaining observed phenomena and you do not. So what was genial in Copernicus is just empty stubbornness and ignorance in your case. Sorry for being so direct.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I'll take it, since once

I'll take it, since once again my goal isn't to claim to be the next Copernicus, it's to show the objections raised against me are unfounded, given that they were also faced by them.

P.S. His model was not better at explaining anything. In fact, you could say it was worse since it predicted a parallax effect which the Ptolemaic model did not, and no parallax was observed at the time; it also thought orbits were circles rather than ellipses. The Ptolemeic model was still superior in many aspects (Bennet et al., 2012)

Reference: Bennett, J., Donahue, M., Schneider, N., & Voit, M. (2012). The Essential Cosmic Perspective (6th ed). Boston: Pearson.

Sheldon's picture
"I'll take it, since once

"I'll take it, since once again my goal isn't to claim to be the next Copernicus, it's to show the objections raised against me are unfounded, given that they were also faced by them."

Nonsense, they had properly validated empirical evidence for their claims, which is why their paradigm shifting claims though met with scepticism at first were accepted. You are denying properly validated empirical evidence. They were scientists, you are not, you just want to lend pretensions of gravitas to your beliefs in a creation myth.

You won't even give candid answers to questions on here, let alone submit your claims to proper scientific scrutiny.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
"Publication of [Copernicus']

Properly validated empirical evidence.... lol

"Publication of [Copernicus'] book spread the Sun-centered idea widely, and many scholars were drawn to its aesthetic advantages. Nevertheless, the Copernican model gained relatively few converts over the next 50 years, for a good reason: It didn’t work all that well [...] Part of the difficulty faced by astronomers who sought to improve either the Ptolemaic model or the Copernican model was a lack of quality data. The telescope had not yet been invented, and existing naked-eye observations were not very accurate." (Bennett et al, 2012, p 65).

Reference: Bennett, J., Donahue, M., Schneider, N., & Voit, M. (2012). The Essential Cosmic Perspective (6th ed). Boston: Pearson.

Sheldon's picture
Straw man red herring, you'll

Straw man red herring, you'll never change. The point, since you have ignored it, is that your claims are denying properly validated scientific fact. Whilst championing a superstitious creation myth for which you can demonstrate no objective evidence. Whilst falsely pretending your claims have scientific validity. Meanwhile you're trashing aspects of the scientific method that you find inconvenient like the world wide scientific consensus on species evolution that has lasted almost 160 years of proper scrutiny with a risible conspiracy theory.

What's with lol after every post, are you 13?

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
While I've constantly

While I've constantly mentioned that my view on evolution would not change if I was atheist, I have heard that Copernicus' ideas may have been influenced by some form of sun worship ideology (see Farris, 2003).

Reference: Farris, T. (2003). Coming of age in the Milky Way. New York: Harper-Collinsh

Sheldon's picture
"While I've constantly

"While I've constantly mentioned that my view on evolution would not change if I was atheist,"

And I have constantly said I don't believe you, and you have refused to show any evidence to support the claim, like oh I don't know, 2 or 3 scientific facts you deny other than evolution that don't in any way refute any part of your religious beliefs, which you claim is irrelevant but we can all see shows selection bias and motive.

Also your view has no evidence to support ti, juts claims in an internet chatroom.

Then there was your claim yesterday that scientists are accepting the fact of evolution because of their ideology, now what ideology might that be I wonder? Then there is the fact you brought the claims to an atheist forum, ho hum...

" I have heard that Copernicus' ideas may have been influenced by some form of sun worship ideology (see Farris, 2003)."

Newton believed in the christian superstition, alchemy and astrology, this doesn't make his scientific ideas wrong, as they have withstood proper scientific scrutiny, his religious beliefs do not, see how that works?

Likewise evolution has been properly validated by scientific scrutiny over almost 160 years, creationists are unable to demonstrate a shred of objective evidence despite having thousands of years. You saw me ask you to demonstrate some objective evidence for creationism right? Wouldn't want you telling the mods I'm spamming.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
"...this doesn't make his

"Newton believed in the christian superstition . . . this doesn't make his scientific ideas wrong . . . see how that works?"

Yup, I do see how it works; which is why your intent is questionable when you bring up creationism as a scapegoat.

Sheldon's picture
No it isn't "questionable"

No it isn't "questionable" you just want to ignore it as your motives and bias are inherent in the belief. I need no "scapegoat" as you have demonstrated no evidence that challenges evolution, just flip on any news channel if you don't believe me. So we can all see why you want to focus on those claims, and avoid answering questions about your belief in creationism.

So what objective evidence can you demonstrate for your creationist beliefs? As falsifying evolution would be irrelevant to that fact. Creation would / does remain a superstitious myth. So your grandiose claims are all for naught anyway.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
"just flip on any news

"just flip on any news channel if you don't believe me."

Firstly, I don't get my science information from news channels; and secondly, who even watches the news like that anymore lol.

Sheldon's picture
And there's the evasion again

And there's the evasion again, do you think it's compelling argument to ignore the salient point in a post John?

The *point since you ignored it, is you have not offered any scientific evidence against any aspect of evolution, and no amount of snide ad hominem or typing lol will change that.

You also ingored my question *again.

So what objective evidence can you demonstrate for your creationist beliefs?

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
These aren't even ad hominems

These aren't even ad hominems lol, at most they are insults, completely independent of whatever argument it is you are making. Here's another one: I've notice your mind tends to enter into some sort of circular positive feedback loop. Certain things trigger the same thought process, and you go on to repeat yourself again, only to arrive at the same point and start over.

Have you watched West World sir?

Sheldon's picture
Nothing in that post

Nothing in that post addresses anything in my post you're replying to, but this is your MO so yes I can see why it seems like you're reading the same thing over and over, it's because you won't address anyone's posts or answer their questions.

1) How many experts on evolution have you shared your creationist ideas with?
2) How many scientific facts do you deny that in no way refute any part of your religious beliefs?
3) How many website with expertise on evolution have you voiced your creationist ideas on?
4) Why are you on an atheist chat room making claims that deny a scientific fact, which just happens to refute your religion's creation myth? There must be sites with experts in evolution after all.
5) Why did you claim the bible denounced slavery but refuse to discuss any texts that actually mentioned slavery?
6) How many of your professors have you shared your creationist denials of evolution with, and what are their qualifications in evolution, and what were their reactions?
7) How many of the scientific texts you have quoted as supporting your claims, don't accept species evolution as a valid scientific theory / fact? Citations please...
8) What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your creationist beliefs?

If you want a change of pace try answering some questions.

aperez241's picture
Breezy,

Breezy,

As it is typical you are harping at details to obfuscate the point and derail the discussion so I am going to re-phrase my previous statement: "The not so small difference between you and the scientists who have changed paradigms in science is that they had a model that was supposed to explain observed facts and, in time, it was proved to be able to do it better than previous models". You do not even have a model so all of your posturings as a paradigm-changing scientific mind looks more like the result of ignorance combined with narcissism and stubbornness. Sorry to be so direct.

Sheldon's picture
Your assessment is accurate,

Your assessment is accurate, and of course creationism rots brains, and retards reasons like hot water melts ice. This isn't my debut with intransigent superstitious belief trying to masquerade itself as enlightened open minded scientific empiricism. The irony never quite goes away though. I like it when they reverse every fact, then hurl Orwellian doublethink at anyone who tries to be objective.

For the record has anyone asked Breezy if he accepts the fact that the world is around 4.543 billion years old? It occurred to me recently when he busy pretending to respond to a raft of posts but not answering them at all that don't believe anyone has asked him?

How about it Breezy, how old is the world?

Sheldon's picture
"I can't both become

"I can't both become entrenched in a position and derail the conversation simultaneously"

Of course you can , what an absurdly stupid thing to say. You are entrenched in a superstitious religious belief, and every time someone asks a question that exposes this you derail the conversation to avoid answering.

Everyone can see it John, your act is hardly new, let alone unique. This act is creationist lies from day one, and despite you obviously thinking you're more polished or informed, it just ain't so.

Nothing on any news channel about any scientific facts being falsified, whatever can the holdup be?

Greensnake's picture
John 61X Breezy,

John 61X Breezy,

You don't really attack weaknesses, John, you create red herrings based on pseudoweaknesses (details of no particular relevance or, at best, worthy of a passing notice). And they do derail the conversation into meaningless channels. You still haven't addressed any part of the fossil record, which is a little odd, evidence of derailment actually, given that the fossil record is the main topic.

Greensnake's picture
David Killens,

David Killens,

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.