132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
camlok
 
  0  
Sat 22 Sep, 2018 11:53 am
@rosborne979,
Another post where rosborne pretends that science is important to him.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Sat 22 Sep, 2018 12:04 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
5. Evolution is about evolution. Abiogenesis is about abiogenesis. Nice and simple, two different things. One thing they have in common however is that they are both pure and natural, unsullied by the clumsy machinations of any creator.

Sounds like Ontological Naturalism to me, which is philosophy, not science.
KingReef
 
  0  
Sat 22 Sep, 2018 12:39 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
@KingReef,
KingReef wrote:
Let me list these concerns I have about Evolution:

Ok. Let me list the concerns I have about your concerns:
1. What the hell are you talking about?
2. Evolution is a scientific fact, not an assumption.
3. Only if you are confused.
4. Evolution is extremely important. It's the cornerstone of modern biology, the knowledge of which is used to help millions of people every day.
5. Evolution is about evolution. Abiogenesis is about abiogenesis. Nice and simple, two different things. One thing they have in common however is that they are both pure and natural, unsullied by the clumsy machinations of any creator.


. . . . this is what I'm talking about. I don't agree, therefore I must be confused. I think a theory is best described as a presumption, rather than a fact. I took Biology 1 &2 in High School, did well in those classes, and didn't have to cement any ideology about Evolution. I realize that Evolution is not the same thing as abiogenesis, so why is Evolution being compared to Creation so often? (Rhetorical question)

My point was to say why I don't believe in Evolution. You can believe whatever you want to believe, including thinking that a Theory is a Fact.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 22 Sep, 2018 05:13 pm
@rosborne979,
Another of the panicky arguments the Creationists try to pass off as fact is the concept of "sudden appearance" of complex animal life i the "Cambrian Explosion".
A new paper in this weeks SCience has used geochemistry, to push at last 3 of the animal phyla to 50 Million years BEFORE the Cambrian explosion. Several of the fossils of complex life are of molluscs , gastropods and annelids. The fossil of DICKINSONIA (youve herd me cry about the "animalistic physiological traits I saw in this fossil, have been verified by doing complex HPLC and MS analyses in which the fossil organic chemicals from its circulatory fluids are fossil Sterols. The sterol we share with all animal life is cholesterol. which is waht the reserach team had located and identified in all of the Dickinsonians from Flinders Hills, Mesabi, Greenland (Isua) , the Russian Cryoginian and African Rhyacian sediments.

Evidence of a gradual, slow, radiating evolution of early life seems to be refuting what Creationists try to preach.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Sat 22 Sep, 2018 07:29 pm
@farmerman,
I know. Some scientist somewhere says "Cambrian Explosion" because a bunch of biological change happens in less than a billion years, and all the Creationists think it happened in a day. It's just unfortunate that, "Cambrian Explosion" is catchier than "Cambrian relatively-faster-compared-to-the-last-2-billion-years expansion". Or we wouldn't have to explain this every time.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Sat 22 Sep, 2018 07:35 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
5. Evolution is about evolution. Abiogenesis is about abiogenesis. Nice and simple, two different things. One thing they have in common however is that they are both pure and natural, unsullied by the clumsy machinations of any creator.

Sounds like Ontological Naturalism to me, which is philosophy, not science.
It's poetic license.
Helloandgoodbye
 
  -1  
Sat 22 Sep, 2018 08:14 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote’Evolution is a scientific fact.....’

O.M.G. 🤦‍♂️🤷‍♂️ 😔
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Sun 23 Sep, 2018 06:37 am
@farmerman,
Seen this -- pretty amazing.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/09/the-oldest-known-animal-is-wait-seriously-what-is-that/570865/

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2018/09/Dickinsonia/lead_720_405.jpg?mod=1537460849
Dickinsonia fossil
ILYA BOBROVSKIY / AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY



farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 23 Sep, 2018 10:13 am
@Olivier5,
wonder what they tasted like? Soma them were huuge.
From our latest cc of Invertebrate Paleontology (26 vols on line costs many euros)
Im fully xpecting a big rewrite on these critters and some more feelings about whether they rpresents any ky roles in defining the time zones between the Ediacaran and the end of the Cryoginian (when the Intelligent Designer put the whole system on "PROGRAM DEFROST").
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sun 23 Sep, 2018 10:25 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
I know. Some scientist somewhere says "Cambrian Explosion" because a bunch of biological change happens in less than a billion years, and all the Creationists think it happened in a day. It's just unfortunate that, "Cambrian Explosion" is catchier than "Cambrian relatively-faster-compared-to-the-last-2-billion-years expansion". Or we wouldn't have to explain this every time.

Cripes, the denial of facts here is too much.

First off, it was your sacred scientists that coined the term 'Cambrian Explosion'.

Second, look up the ******* term. The estimates vary between 10 to 50 million years, not anything a billion. It’s an eye blink in geologic terms.

Talk about denial...
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 23 Sep, 2018 11:25 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Cripes, the denial of facts here is too much
Yes it is and , once again, its you doing the denying. Izzy Ramirez did a compusearch to see when and by whom the use of the "Cambrian Explosion"[CE] began. It wasnt a scientist at all (even though some, had credited Steve Gould with it and he accepted the responsibility and blamed it on not understanding how fraudulent the MO of Creationists was)
Actually Izzy found that FRITZ RIDENOUR, a Creationist non- science writer of Biblical apologetics coined the phrase in hi Book "WHO SAYS"(dated 1967). FACTS:
The" CE" lasted anywhere between 25 and 70 my years _from the late Cryoginian as a beginning)

The CE can validly claim the beginnings of about 11 of the known 32 phyla of animalia and NONE of the terrestrial plants. 8 phyla appeared during the rest of the Paleozoic and 12 have NO FOSSIL RECORD till after the Paleozoic. THESE ARE PHYLLA not "kinds"

The claims of the CE for a "Sudden appearance of all life forms occurred during the CE" is a line by HENRY MORRIS from his 1985 "Scientific Creationism " (A book tht was soundly debunked in the Louisiana case of EDWARDS v AGUILLARD

Also, JONATHAN WELLS in his 2000 book "Icons of Evolution" Fraudulently stated that ALL animals appeared together in the CE"

These guys were merely trying to redefine the Biblical "7 days of Creation" into a new "DAY/DATE' time clock for Creationists and Fundamentalist Christians to celebrate.
SO ere I you, Id learn a bit more of your history and stop trying to turn the argument about as if you know of what you're speaking.

AND, even if you were right about the first stuff (Which you are NOT), whats wrong with 10 to 50 MY years in duration??.

Think about evolution in terms of COMPOUND INTEREST. (My only reference to Malthus-like thinking).
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sun 23 Sep, 2018 11:36 am
@farmerman,
I’m not here to defend anyone else's denials and falsehoods.
I actually don’t know who coined the term but it is an accurate description for the stunningly fast emergence of all the modern body plans in the early part of the Cambrian period. It is used in textbooks everywhere. The Cambrian includes the entire era, not just the emergence of the body plans which is the point I’m making. How long was that period where the new ones emerged? Hard to say exactly, but it was damn fast compared to 'gradual evolution' which Darwin said is the only kind possible.

Do you really think mainstream science would embrace a term originating with a religious source if it wasn’t descriptive of the actual event?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sun 23 Sep, 2018 11:43 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
It's poetic license.

It is, until you start denying reality.
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 23 Sep, 2018 11:55 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
I actually don’t know who coined the term but it is an accurate description for the stunningly fast emergence of all the modern body plans in the early part of the Cambrian period. It is used in textbooks everywhere (This is bullshit you know?
Then quit trying to insult someone in your passive aggressive style after correctly trying to inform you with facts .Now youre just waffling about trying not to sound so ignorant

Quote:
How long was that period where the new ones emerged? Hard to say exactly, but it was damn fast compared to 'gradual evolution' which Darwin said is the only kind possible.
I counted the number of phylla for which we have evidence of when they appeared in the fossil record and presented them above. You say its fast, but I say you dont have a clue of what youre talking.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 23 Sep, 2018 12:09 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Do you really think mainstream science would embrace a term originating with a religious source if it wasn’t descriptive of the actual event?
Another bit of news in case you missed the memos. SCIENCE DOES NOT embrace the term . We usually laugh at it when itspresented at a conference cause most of us know better.
The use of the term falls into 3 categories in the scientific literature

1 those scientists who are convinced that there was a such a period in which ALL phylla arose (like Andreas WAgner(an evolution geneticist) in hi "Arrival of the Fittest") He claims that ALL phylla arose at the CE. Hes dead wrong and , while using it to make another point entirely, he rather sullied his writing with a few silly inaccurate zingers that diminish an otherwise pretty good book. BUT, as Roberta states "If hes wrong in one area, you kinda wonder whther hes gotten the other areas correct or not "

2 Those scientists who recognize the CE was a period of time (of indeterminate length but at least 50 my) in which aboout 1/3 of animal phylla appeared and these in a period of about 50 my .


3. Those scientists who , not giving a **** about the popular press, or Creqtionit/IDers make fun of several "explosions" knowing that people need entertainmnt too.



Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sun 23 Sep, 2018 12:33 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Another bit of news in case you missed the memos. SCIENCE DOES NOT embrace the term .

What is not news, is that you claim to speak for Science and don’t like it when questioned on that.
farmerman
 
  1  
Sun 23 Sep, 2018 05:05 pm
@Leadfoot,
I dont think Ive heard of you claiming to have spent any time at conferences or symposia of evolution or paleontology. So, yes, I do feel qualified in this limited sense to speak for science since I know some things because Ive oftenseen them in action. YOU?

As far as not willing to discuss them, I think Ive been too open mouthed as you have often criticzed me for my "much speaking" and prolix irrelevant style that (YOU ASSERT) Doesnt hit the topic, when it really does (you just dont know it)

0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Mon 24 Sep, 2018 12:26 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
wonder what they tasted like? 

Oysters?

What i found impressive is that they could find biochemical traces of sterols. I didn't think it was possibled for such old fossiles.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Mon 24 Sep, 2018 04:36 am
@Leadfoot,
You misread my post. Or didn’t understand it. I’m not sure which.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Mon 24 Sep, 2018 04:37 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
It's poetic license.

It is, until you start denying reality.
I never deny reality. You should know that by now.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 11:03:36