Dishonest Questions About Evolution

un-

I think your use of the word "incredibly" suggests you have a great deal of unused capacity.

What have I said to upset you like this. I only reported what I read. I haven't said anything about what I think on any of these subjects. Give me an example or two of something that has given you cause to make your clever remark and then I can address the matter and try to bring myself within range of your approval. I do so crave to have it.

wande-

Don't you think that it is a bit dishonest to try to pretend that the posters on A2K would ask such stupid questions about evolution as you are presuming to suggest they ask.

Has anyone on here asked any of those questions?

Are you inventing idiots in order to appear superior to them?

Spendi,

I have seen each question (in some form) asked on A2K threads. All quotes are the intellectual property of A2K.

Holy smoke!

I thought this was ask an expert.

Have I made a mistake?

I thought I was in exalted company. That's what the blurb said.

1) the entire human RACE is ignorant to the majority of the brain's operation.

2) Yes of COURSE any neurologist who claims that 90% of the brain is not used is absolutely an ignoramus, because only an idiot would make a statement about something that they do not understand. I don't care how many years a person has spent studying the brain, they can't possibly know more than the human race presently does.

3) Give some names of living neurologists who stand by that claim spendius

The first two are very good quetions. I would love to know the answers. Also, if evolution were true, how come there is no record of anyone ever seeing something between a monkey and a human? If it were true, one would have to have existed in the past few thousand years.

I think many of these are valid questions. And if evolutionists were able to answer them, then I would actually consider changing my views on evolution. So why is everyone so against people asking them?

Because they aren't valid questions. They are either proposed out the ignorance of the person asking the questions, or by someone who has an agenda, and doesn't really care what the answer is, but who simply wants to raise doubts about a theory of evolution.

This is a perfect example:



Since there wasn't "anyone" around, it would be a bit much to expect. Hominids diverged from the ancestors of the old world monkeys and the great apes about 20,000,000 years ago. We are homo sapiens sapiens, and no other hominid species have survived. H. sapiens sapiens arose as long ago as 150,000 years. When you say that "one would have to have existed in the past few thousand years," you are either woefully uninformed, or you are wedded to an assumption that the earth is only a few thousand years old--i.e., a "young earth" creationist.

If that is the case, you should at least be honest about it up front.

That sounds awfully coincidental. Lucky for evolutionists that none of them survived so they don't have to prove their point.

Don't know anything about a theory of evolution, do you?

He knows better than to presume those questions are "dishonest". To make that presumption is simply a cheapskate way of excusing oneself from answering them.

I feel sure that those questions have been asked honestly and many times. Maybe they are simplistic and naive, or some of them, but that is not the same as dishonest.

One might expect simplistic and naive questions to appear on a site known as Ask an Expert as people seek guidance. Why don't you provide that guidance instead of insulting people by saying they are being dishonest.

Here's an honest question-

How has evolution gone from the millions of years during which no species provided the slightest threat to the planet to a 200 year explosion of capacity in man which might be said to threaten the existence of all life when it is an obvious fact that evolutionary changes of even a minor order require long stretches, unimaginably long in Darwin's words, to work through.

For BlueAwesomeness, a summary of evolutionary theory and types of supporting evidence:



Source: David Quammen, National Geographic Magazine

spendi.
Thats not true, early bauplans of life included the cyanobacters , whose respiratory exudate was a toxic gas (wrt the planet at that time) Dirst thing after they established themselves it becameobvious that the entire atmosphere was becoming fouled with oxygen. Evolution is not a predictor of what will happen in years to come, it is, primarily, a system by which species
adapt, when adaptation is accomplished , some "weeding out" takes place at various time scales. Consider how feral goats and cats can totally change the ecosystems of islands after they are introduced(all within a few generations).

The fact that man is pan-terraforming animal whose technology and populational size has clearly demonstrated theFranklin/Malthusian observation of "Reproduction rates always outstrip the ability for the environment to support", which Darwin used in his own sysnthesis.

Ben Franklin observed that said "If we were to strip the world of all species except Fennel Plants and Englishmen, we would, in a few generations, be overwhelmed with Englishmen and Fennel Plants. Malthus copied that thinking and Darwin actually found ways to quantitate the results. We are, in a fashion, demonstrating the "Carrying capacity" of the ecosystem. The fact that we induce the changes is just the genius of this species.
Keep up the observation though, its good for you to walk outside the pub now and again.

wande quoted-



The use of the word "random" is an assertion. As the whole of the anti-design argument is posited on the word it follows that it is posited on that assertion and the assertion cannot be proved.

One might thus conclude that the anti-design argument is unscientific and relies on the reader hardly noticing this important word in a long screed of psuedo-scientific jargon which utilises long words to weave spells around the reader with a view to baffling him which is the standard practice of all shamans and thus quite unsurprising.

In fact, there is already a passage in the history of the evolution of life on earth in which a single species threatened almost all life on earth. The appearance of cyanobacteria eventually destroyed huge amounts of the bacterial life which then existed--although it took literally hundreds of millions of years for them to create enough oxygen to threaten the anaerobic life forms which had first arisen.

It is a conceit to think that humans would destroy life on the planet. It is possible, but highly improbable, that humanity might destroy the planet itself. But other than shattering the planet, the most likely consequence of the self-destruction of the human race would be the gradual rise of another dominant and sentient life from. It doesn't flatter our self-importance to consider it, but we are just not that important, nor is our impact that great. Life will get along just fine if we happen to screw up and destroy ourselves.

Good morning, Bubbula--i see you were also drawn by the Spurious nonsense this fine morning. Time to get some coffee.

Im on my second cup, watch out crossword puzzle!

How can anybody say that another species, having a fancy impressive name of course known only to the elite, have threatened life on our planet when here we are in the midst of life. Cynobacteria is just another bogeyman, to save the phenomena of a half-baked theory, which is probably made up to frighten the aunties.

And I only said "might be said to threaten the existence of all life". I didn't say we did threaten the existence of life. I have heard scientists say it. I too think it a conceit but not 100%. Anyone who thinks 100% about anything is stupid by definition from a scientific point of view and when adding that to an inability to read a simple sentence properly it borders on the cretinous.

A large amount of time and money was spent on checking the moon walkers for just such a danger. There are other possibilities I gather related to military biological weaponry, radiation, damage to protective layers in the upper atmosphere and some scientists seem to think that global warming could reach a critical point beyond which things go whoosh.

But as usual the point is missed. It concerned the timescale being outside of an evolutionary explanation. That Christian man is not subject to evolution theory and the proper study of mankind is man. Who cares about cynobacteria from the unimaginably distant past?

You guys will just have to stay in the hole your arrogance has dug for you and lob your feather dusters out from time to time. The Second Religiousness is coming as Spengler predicted.

In the Dylan song Nettie Moore (2006) there is this-

"Well, the world of research has gone beserk
Too much paperwork
Albert's in the graveyard, Frankie's raising hell
I'm beginning to believe what the scriptures tell."

Second thoughts eh? The second line of the song is "Something's out of whack."

How's this for a mystic prophecy dating about 1602

"Take but degree away, untune that string,
And hark, what discord follows. Each thing meets
In mere oppugnancy. The bounded waters
Should lift their bosoms higher than the shores
And make a sop of all this solid globe."

Troilus and Cressida.

The American Dream is based on untuning that string isn't it?

And the scientists say that the waters are rising.

An untapped wealth of funding, I'm sure

The problem in trusting creationism is they start with the virgin birth. They don't want any evidence or proof of that. We might ask the same question; were you there?