Question Evolution!

In case you want the pamphlet of the 15 questions no evolutionist can answer, go here. 

Click to access 15-questions-for-evolutionists-s.pdf

My usual buttons aren’t working and I don’t know the HTML code to link off hand. 

There’s obviously something wrong with wordpress today. 

41 thoughts on “Question Evolution!

  1. All this crap and still no peer-reviewed research. Sure to sway the minds of those with little scientific understanding, and annoy everyone else.

    I read through the pamphlet too, and it’s all the same tired, old, fucking bullshit that’s been answered SATISFACTORILY (that’s what the video above said, SATISFACTORILY ANSWERED) by people who at least understand gene flow, population bottlenecks, abiogenesis, junk DNA, and a slew of other big words. I don’t feel like starting on all the logical leaps and fallacies they put in to make it seem like they had any semblance of credibility.

    Fuck, a few days reading TalkOrigins answers every single Christ-addled problem these nitwits have.

    Gish Gallup of regurgitated fail cud. I’m going to start calling creationists cows, because they keep spitting up the same shit.

  2. I like your tests. It makes it look like you’re a heavy commenter and this post got a lot of comment hits …

    Just kidding. What do you want me to take out?

    1. You can erase the two posts following my first post on this page if you want, else you can leave them and make me look like I’m really awesome person that I’m not.

  3. “Satisfactorally” is a matter of personal taste. I believe evolution, but I believe that that’s how God did it. But the questions have not been put to bed, obviously.

  4. What a crock of horseshit! That pamphlet just regurgitates the same old tired bunch of fuckwittery that’s been addressed over and over and over.

    Can these IDiots not come up with some original thought stream once and a while?

    1. I guess George (he) defines nonsense as “anything he (George) doesn’t agree with”. But what’s not to agree with, He? I mean George? I’m with you-Evolution is true. Gosh, you’re confused now! TTFN.

      1. Are you kidding, David? Whatever George says, we all think.

        We’re George bots.

        But you wouldn’t know anything about robot-ism then would you?

        I can’t remember what you think, David. Could you say something that would cause me to remember?

        You’ve been gone for so long, I kind of forgot what you’re about.

      2. Well for one, I don’t dismiss evolution, and I don’t dismiss the Creation account in Genesis. They are not at odds with each other, except in evangelical minds, in fact a small minority. (not as small as the minority of atheists, though)

      3. David,
        I don’t define nonsense as things I don’t agree with- I define nonsense as statements that make no sense. You are astute to note that I also happen to disagree with those kinds of statements- and you are chock full of them David- even if you do accept evolution.
        You and I agree on many things, I’m sure, but that doesn’t mean you get a pass when it comes to poorly reasoned arguments.

        I’m satisfied that you won’t let your personal delusions get in the way of accepting established evolutionary facts- yet we have seen enough places where it does get in the way of reality to make that delusion still dangerous and still specious.

        Let me use an analogy. Let’s say you believe homeopathy, but concede that someone suffering from prostate cancer ought to receive traditional medical treatment in conjunction with your homeopathic woo. That doesn’t make traditional medicine wrong-because it is supported by someone with batshit crazy ideas.
        Nor does it make homeopathy-or your support of it- right, just because you refuse to let your delusions interfere with reality in this one instance.
        If you were this kind of person I would still question your stand on homeopathy- even if you were arguing against a more delusional crank who thought mainstream medicine was a conspiracy to profit off of the suffering of others.

        I hope that helps clear up your (my?) confusion. TTFN.

      4. Well, he, I mean George, I’m honored that you think I’m crazy. That more than proves my point. About atheists, that is. I haven’t seen where you have any proof that evolution is ‘fact’. It is probably true, but you won’t ever be able to prove it. Regardless of homeopathic medicine or whatnot.

        You also haven’t proven that anything I’ve ever said is wrong. I may not have explained it to your satisfaction, but that’s your problem, not mine. TTFN.

      5. David,
        Get over yourself.
        I never said you were crazy- I said you based many of your opinions on a delusion. Howard Huge difference.

        That you assume that a) I called you crazy and b)that this makes you “right” about an entire diverse group of people; only goes to show how entirely divorced from reality you can be.

        Evolution is a fact. I have proof. That you accept it on some combination of bare evidence and papal say-so just reiterates why I can and should find your brand of quasi-reasoning pathetic and dangerous.

        I’m glad that your inability to properly defend your positions becomes my problem- is that biblical, David? I bet it is- and isn’t-and is- all in the same breath.
        TTFN

      6. George, you say you define nonsense as things that don’t make sense. You forgot two words which also make a huge difference. You call nonsense things that don’t make sense to you. But they do make sense to most of a billion people, so who does that reflect on? I’d say that reflects on you.

        Oh, you have proof of evolution? Then why are we, the whole world, still calling it “the theory” of evolution? Because there is no conclusive proof. Just as Galileo had no conclusive proof of heliocentrism, we have no proof.

        I have properly defended my positions, He, it’s you who don’t accept them. Just like I don’t accept that your proof of evolution suffices as proof in the absolute sense. You’re the one who cannot fully defend your position. Face it, George, proof requires us to reproduce it consistently. And we cannot, and will never be able to, reproduce that. Doesn’t mean that we should toss off evolution, but it does not qualify it as fact.

      7. Yes, David, the superstitions of millions of people reflect poorly on me for refusing to bow to credulity. Very astute observation.

        There are over 2 billion people who believe that women are lesser humans- should I be ashamed for disagreeing with consensus? When did consensus=truth? Are you aware that the overwhelming majority of people who read this blog think you are a bloody idiot? Who does that reflect on, David? I’d say that reflects on you.

        Again, evolution is a “theory”- as is gravity, as is heliocentrism, as is special relativity. The word theory does not mean “best guess”, or whatever colloquial use you like to use it for. In science it means something entirely different.
        It’s not the same as me saying “I have a theory that the Pope is part of a pedophilia ring”, which, although likely true, is still just my best guess. The theory of evolution is a multidisciplinary collection of facts and evidence that when viewed in totality make it impossible for evolution to be false. You are wrong, pure and simple. Here is a quote from two ardent evolutionist who uses the word “reality” and “proof” and explain the importance of a unified “theory” in their summation of the evidence:

        “It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory….. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory’s validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts;… the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data.. We know in effect that truth cannot contradict truth.”

        “…there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

        Are you saying David, that you disagree with these statements?

      8. I don’t know that 2 billion people think women are lesser humans. I know that there are a lot of people who disagree with how the West views women. I want to know how you know that statement is true? Did you interview them?
        Consensus is not equal to truth. And I don’t see any consensus. Right is right no matter if nobody is doing it, and wrong is wrong regardless of how many are doing it.

        George, are you aware that I don’t care if someone thinks I’m an idiot? Especially if they’re someone I have no regard for, one way or another?

        Regardless of what scholarly minds may think, it’s more like facts that we have are molded into the theory of evolution. It’s not that we have a theory and the facts bear it out.

        The reason there is so much controversy about evolution is that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were something that happened in the past, it should be continuing to happen. There should be transitional forms in the fossil record, too, but there aren’t.

        One very good reason to disbelieve evolution (macroevolution) is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The law of increasing entropy stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go “downhill,” as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

        This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems — in fact, in all systems, without exception.

        This puts belief in evolution right up there with what you view as belief in God…Have a great weekend, George.

      9. Hey David,

        Is this deja vu? Do you cut and paste this stuff from other conversations you have had here?

        You can say that you “believe in evolution,” that’s fine.

        But you really can’t say you believe it, and then later say there are problems with it like the laws of thermodynamics (a well- and long-defeated creationist “argument” and “transitional fossils.

        Or maybe you can say it, and feel it’s not cognitive dissonance.

        I have a challenge for you.

        List three issues you have with belief. Just three arguments that you ponder that cause you to question the religion you subscribe to. If you have issues — that have well been addressed — with evolution, surely you have a critical mind to your belief system and hold a microscope up to it once in a while.

        The challenge is set. 

        Go.

      10. Jeremy,
        To be honest, I don’t have problems with believing something I can’t see. I believe that Jesus did miracles, all of which go against conventional science. It is because of my belief in God that I can believe in evolution. The problem I have is that folks like you and the fundamentalists make up these false dichotomies, like science vs. religion, that are just that-false. I would agree with you that the fundamentalist way of believing that creation is the answer is wrong. And I would say that the scientific evolution-only folks are wrong too. It’s some combination. Science exists because of God, not in spite of Him.
        Evolution is probably right, and so is the account of creation in the Bible. They are not mutually exclusive. But just because we cannot prove scientifically that evolution, heliocentrism and the Big Bang are true, it is likely they happened in some way shape or form. And as I said, it’s the same problem Galileo had with the Church-he had no proof, and no way to show conclusively what he found.

        You guys want to say you don’t believe in God (basically) because you can’t see him, well, you believe in evolution even though you can’t really see it, don’t you?

      11. So you’re not going to accept my challenge, then?

        To your point, your argument is stale and moldy.

        Faith, faith everywhere. I get it. I was taught to tell evolutionists they were faithful way back in high school.

        I get why you say it. And from your viewpoint, I see why.

        When I look at the evidence for god. When god is said to have had a hand in the evidence that is “the bible”, I see multiple failures of understanding the first thing about humanity, science, psychology, anthropology, etc.

        When your bar for belief in god is set as high as erroneous views and debunked logic, I question your ability to discern greatness.

        Accept my challenge, David. It would separate you from the idiots.

      12. David, you’ve said twice now that the biblical creation account is not mutually exclusive to evolution. How can that be?

        If I had been born before Darwin, and never examined or even heard of the fossil record, in fact didn’t even know what a fossil was, and if I were a believer who was getting all my scientific knowledge from the bible, how could I possibly read Genesis and learn about species gradually changing into very different species through natural selection over millions of years?

        (and, for that matter, why did scientifically-minded people read the bible for almost two thousand years and never figure it out?)

      13. Jeremy, I don’t have any problem with “belief”. Some of it is apparent, some of it, not so apparent, some not apparent at all.

        You have your belief system, which is not the belief system of the vast majority of the world. Fine. Go ahead-hold on to your beliefs. Just don’t think you can prove mine wrong either.

        You godless evolutionists believe your own system, which I dispute.

        I can say perfectly easily that I believe that evolution is true, even if I have problems with how evolutionists present it. The general idea makes sense.

        Your comment that my arguments are old and stale make no difference. The invention of the overhead cam is old, too. About 700 or 800 years old.

        As for my Catholic beliefs, I don’t have any problems with them, either. They’re my beliefs. I examined them, and continue to examine them-to enter deeper into them. Do I question? Certainly. But I don’t doubt. I do doubt what the world shows, though.

      14. Jude, the Bibletells the ‘what’ without explaining ‘how’. Science explains ‘how’. FWIW, evolution was expounded a hell of a long time before Darwin got his hands on it. Augustine, Abelard and Thomas Aquinas all had some form of evolutionary thought, and stated that Genesis should not be taken literally. It’s really the Protestant Reformation that took away the freedom of thought.

  5. David,
    Just so that I can prove that I’m not just making this stuff up, and that you are coincidentally full of shit- let me provide you with the reference material for my two “scholarly minds” -as you call them- that you choose to disregard. Here is the reference article for Quote #1
    And quote #2
    Do you still not respect the opinions of these mere “scholarly minds”, do you think you know better than them?
    Bazinga!

    1. Actually, George, this is exactly what I’ve been saying. But believing a theory is different from believing facts. There are still holes in it, and there always will be.

      Bazinga back at you! 😉

  6. Creationists/ID’ers continue to lack the capability to grasp that science does not, cannot, and will not ever address the supernatural. It says nothing about sky fairies but rather places the burden of proof on the claimants. I’ve yet to see any however.

    Another point is that The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the origins of life but rather explains how it became diversified into what is on our planet today.

    Again and again and again and again, they point to the law of thermodynamics and are shockingly surprised when they are given an adequate answer to this which basically equates to that fucking giant fireball in the sky also known as our nearest G2V star, THE FUCKING SUN.

    Instead of accepting this answer however, they stick their fingers in their ears, scream “LALALALA!”, and continue to attempt to sound remotely intelligent by repeating the same, trite, derpy line over and over. They are so desperate to prove that their particular version of the “sky-daddy did it” meme that they’ll ignore anything that answers their accusations appropriately.

    If I had a fucking dollar for every time a C/ID’er pulled the old lame transitional fossil routine, I’d seriously have some dough. Repeat after me: “EVERY FUCKING FOSSIL EVER FUCKING FOUND IS A FUCKING TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL!” See the above paragraph for the appropriate C/ID’er response.

    Those of us who even halfway understand the theory of evolution should and would never state that we believe in evolution. That implies that there is some kind of vaporous quality to it that requires we accept certain tenets without proof.

    There’s a shit-ton of proof that supports it so we should simply state that we accept it as fact; no belief required.

    Now, as for the origins of life, abiogenesis, form all the fucking hypotheses you want regarding intervention from some magic pixie in the sky. Once you have your hypothesis, apply the scientific method to it and see how far it takes you.

    Yes, I realize that there a metric shit-ton of “fuck’s” in this reply.

    1. Minus a few words, this is exactly right. What’s wrong is those who spout creation only, and those who spout evolution only. There are too many holes in it to declare it as fact, though.

  7. Steve, I thought all your “fucks” were pertinent and well placed.

    G-dub — BAZINGA!

    Jude — the bible breeds indolence.

    We are the broken record brigade.

  8. I can’t participate in this conversation since David apparently believes there is no convincing proof of heliocentrism. Because of this I am now convinced he is not playing with a full deck of cards and is not worthy of further attention or time.

    I bid you good day sir.

    I said good day!!!

    1. Goddammit Luis, that comment went straight over my head.

      Thanks for making it more obvious that I’m wasting my time with D-dawg.

    2. Didn’t say there was no proof now. There was no proof when Galileo made his detour into theology out of the realm of science. If Galileo had been able to prove it, the Church would not have had a reason to put him on trial.

      1. Wow! Are you fucking kidding me David?!?! Are you this ridiculously naive to believe the kind and benevolent church would never EVER put an innocent man on trial! I suppose you also believe the Inquisition never ever murdered any innocents?

        Galileo’s observation on the orbits of the planets led to only one conclusion and that was, the planets orbit the sun and not the other way around. The church put him on trial based not on the evidence but based solely on the fact that he dared contradict the geocentric model of the universe claimed in the bible. The church didn’t give a crap whether or not his observations were factual (which they were!). Everyone knows this save for the few fringe whack job geocentrists.

        I now see the lengths you will go to defend the church and it’s really quite sad.

        Done!

      2. No, actually, you’re wrong. First, the Bible does not say that the earth is the phyical center of the universe. And Galileo was wrong-the sun isn’t the center of the universe either. Center of the solar system, true. But Galileo couldn’t prove it with his instrumentation.

        The Bible, understood correctly, says that the planet man stands on is the spritual center of the universe. Galileo disputed that. He was wrong, and the Church held him to it. They told him he could teach the scientific theory as long as he didn’t cross the line into theology.

        Done!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s