Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't real

[Guest]

So you felt it could be a hoax, but still thought it counted as evidence, because of other 'supposed' cases? Come on, SPG. You really can't be this gullible. Being taken in by every hoax you read about is not evidence of suppression.

But, by all means, present your 'supposed' evidence, because your track record at the moment inspires no confidence in any unsupported story you tell.

You are basically missing my point of this stuff. I am open to the idea we have something like pixies. But I don't know. I trust the authorities of science about as much as I trust the pixie find. I don't believe even the good people of the science don't lie their ass off sometimes, which would be the case in the pixie fossils. From my perspective, this was a legit group of scientists on a sponsored mission.

You are saying they lied, that its hoax, but I'm supposed to believe that carbon is killing us and I vote for government to take over the world to protect the planet from smokers.

I don't think I'm gullible, not for your stuff, not for pixies, but I must admit I find the idea of the pixies very interesting. We have a long history with imaginary beings.

[_SPG]

dup

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Among a very long list of serious problems, in my mind, here are a mere few:

Abiogenesis (life spontaneously arising from non living matter)
Evolution of sexual reproduction
Evolution of mitosis

Would you mind listing out the rest of your serious problems with evolution? I find this interesting.

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

So you felt it could be a hoax, but still thought it counted as evidence, because of other 'supposed' cases? Come on, SPG. You really can't be this gullible. Being taken in by every hoax you read about is not evidence of suppression.

But, by all means, present your 'supposed' evidence, because your track record at the moment inspires no confidence in any unsupported story you tell.

... From my perspective, this was a legit group of scientists on a sponsored mission.

"The same photo – and others like it – were used on cryptozoological and pseudoscience websites last year in relation to a story about tiny human fossils found in Antarctica."

I don't think I'm gullible.

If you think a legit group of scientists on a sponsored mission put a fake photo already used in multiple other hoaxes on a pseudoscience website as legitimate evidence of their research, then yes, you are gullible.

[_honorentheos]

being told to read a book. Considering how fascinating the topic is, I think that's really unfortunate at best.

Being pointed to a specific book on a topic one believes to be fascinating is unfortunate at best?

Huh.

[_canpakes]

Ceeboo, healthy skepticism works in many directions.

Ignoring any unexplained ‘natural’ evolution into a system that relies on sexual reproduction between a male and female organism, why would any God decide that such a system was the fair and/or preferable option, given other circumstances that affect that arrangement?

I’m not being facetious; this is a serious question intended to explore the logic of why this exists.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. There are many different sexual configurations of different species on the planet. There is a half dozen among humans alone. Are you talking about a Religious God deciding what is fair, the God of Nature, such what actually happens?

Lacking a response from him at the moment I’m thinking that Ceebs would prefer to posit that a God exists that has determined and implemented a very specific reproductive method for some sort of very specific purpose(s). In light of his skepticism that an evolutionary process has been part of this end result, my question is to ponderize why any God would decide upon this system, and (if applicable) for what larger purpose than mere reproduction.

[_Ceeboo]

For ceboo
Evolution is a demonstrated fact like gravity is a demonstrated fact.
The theory of evolution is our current understanding of how/why the process occurs, just like the theory of gravity is our current understanding of how/why gravity occurs. That gravity or evolution occur is not disputed in science.

That religionists can't wrap their mind around this, is their own problem. Evolution is demonstrable. God did it, isn't.

Hey Steel,

First, for you to suggest that "religionists" are the only group of people that have varying degrees of skepticism about the theory of evolution is a big part of the problem. But I understand why you feel the need to make such a suggestion.

Second, evolution can be seen and demonstrated. The op example reminded me of Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islsnd, where environment change caused adaptations within the beaks of the Finch. That's a very far cry from accepting, with absolute certainty, that the ancient 4 legged land dwelling quadruped (raccoon) has evolved into the modern whale.

Also, in my mind, if you were to consider what the evolutionary process would have had to be for something like sexual reproduction, your head just might explode. But perhaps yours wouldn't? Maybe you take the position of certainty in these things? Either way, I don't have s problem if you take such a position, I just don't share said position.

[_SteelHead]

Ceeboo, religionists are the majority group who oppose evolution. They base their opposition in their "revealed scripture", then resort to all kinds of special pleading arguments to defend their position. There are some non religious skeptics, they are a teeny minority.

Again the "theory of gravity" is our best understanding of the causes and mechanics of observable phenomena.

The "the theory of evolution" is our best understanding of the causes and mechanics of observable phenomena.

That gravity occurs is settled. Drop a ball.
That evolution occurs is settled. Re the study referenced in the OP.

Our understanding of the mechanics of the phenomena will develop over time, and the theory related to the phenomena may change, this doesn't change that the underlying observable phenomena is occurring.

[_SteelHead]

Oh yeah? Show me a crocoduck. Checkmate, evilutionists!

But what about whales and raccoons!?!?


sorry Ceebanator

Xenophon called it over 2 months ago.

[_Ceeboo]

Ceeboo, religionists are the majority group who oppose evolution. They base their opposition in their "revealed scripture", then resort to all kinds of special pleading arguments to defend their position. There are some non religious skeptics, they are a teeny minority.

Steel, in my mind, you are mostly correct. Especially as it relates the various special pleading arguments used in an attempt to defend positions. Where I think you underestimate things is suggesting that there are a teeny minority of non religious skeptics. From my experience (rather limited to be sure) there are many non religionists skeptics and these non religionists skeptics hold various positions with equally various levels of skepticism.