Transitional Fossils - your missing m...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#42 Jan 11, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a beautifully expressed explanation of common descent and transitionals, one that even a CHILD could understand (ahem!).
I'd like to copy it and use it elsewhere when necessary, with a nod to "Chimney1!:)
And thanks.
humble brother

Finland

#43 Jan 15, 2014
The Dude wrote:
I never mentioned living populations, so you have no point here that refutes what I correctly pointed out. The fact evolution works despite you personally finding it theologically/philosophically distasteful is your problem, not ours.(shrug)
I can ask you a simple question. Is evolution a natural phenomenon explained to occur within living populations? Or is it explained to occur within dead individuals? Or is it explained to occur within something else than living populations or dead individuals?

Which one is it? Perhaps you could provide a clear and specific answer.
humble brother

Finland

#44 Jan 15, 2014
The Dude wrote:
All depends on whether your beliefs are compatible with reality then, doesn't it? Your beliefs are a secondary consideration at most, as reality trumps it every time.
Rationale of beliefs:
Belief is by definition the acceptance of something to be true without knowledge. This by definition means that if one believes something to be true, he does not accept the possibility of that something to be false.

If you accept the possibility of fallacy, you by definition do not hold a belief in that regard.

I am personally absolutely unable to form beliefs. I can only accept Trueness only by knowledge, it comes via observation only.
Chimney1 wrote:
Define beliefs carefully.
Read above.

It is not possible to believe something to be True and at the same time accept that it may be false. These positions are mutually exclusive.

-> no beliefs whatsoever have place within science nor in the mind of a scientist with regards to science.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#45 Jan 15, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Rationale of beliefs:
Belief is by definition the acceptance of something to be true without knowledge. This by definition means that if one believes something to be true, he does not accept the possibility of that something to be false.
If you accept the possibility of fallacy, you by definition do not hold a belief in that regard.
I am personally absolutely unable to form beliefs. I can only accept Trueness only by knowledge, it comes via observation only.
<quoted text>
Read above.
It is not possible to believe something to be True and at the same time accept that it may be false. These positions are mutually exclusive.
-> no beliefs whatsoever have place within science nor in the mind of a scientist with regards to science.
Yes, and there is the crux of the matter. In science, belief is not required. Acceptance of the evidence is the requirement. That you cannot tell the difference says nothing except that like most fundies you completely fail to understand that most important point.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#46 Jan 15, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Rationale of beliefs:
Belief is by definition the acceptance of something to be true without knowledge. This by definition means that if one believes something to be true, he does not accept the possibility of that something to be false.
If you accept the possibility of fallacy, you by definition do not hold a belief in that regard.
I am personally absolutely unable to form beliefs. I can only accept Trueness only by knowledge, it comes via observation only.
<quoted text>
Read above.
It is not possible to believe something to be True and at the same time accept that it may be false. These positions are mutually exclusive.
-> no beliefs whatsoever have place within science nor in the mind of a scientist with regards to science.
So if you believe something to be true but accept the idea you could be incorrect, you cannot have that belief.

I'm sure you think this is quite profound.

It isn't.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#47 Jan 15, 2014
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, and there is the crux of the matter. In science, belief is not required.
Why do you believe that?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#48 Jan 15, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you believe that?
Why did you ignore the rest of the post? It completed the entire argument!

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#49 Jan 15, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did you ignore the rest of the post? It completed the entire argument!
It is because he is an EXPERT at...bullshit.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#50 Jan 15, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It is because he is an EXPERT at...bullshit.
I just love it when these idiots prove the exact opposite of what they think they are saying. Happens all the time and they're just too thick to notice....

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#51 Jan 15, 2014
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
I just love it when these idiots prove the exact opposite of what they think they are saying. Happens all the time and they're just too thick to notice....
I know what you mean. It is astounding how little they know about which they post.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#52 Jan 16, 2014
humble brother wrote:
It is not possible to believe something to be True and at the same time accept that it may be false. These positions are mutually exclusive.
Wrong. But very telling.

In the real world, belief about anything SHOULD be qualified by an acceptance of doubt, of a level of confidence in that belief based on the evidence supporting it. Along with a willingness to change the level of doubt and even reverse position if new evidence is compelling.

That is how scientists think.

We leave massive conviction combined with poor evidence to the dogmatic - nazis, communists, radical feminists, fundamentalist religions, astrologers.

You have not learned how to think effectively, thats all. And you lack all humility. Because accepting a dollop of doubt in your own opinions shows that you realise you can neither observe nor understand with perfection, but merely do a reasonable job if you are careful.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#53 Jan 16, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
I can ask you a simple question. Is evolution a natural phenomenon explained to occur within living populations? Or is it explained to occur within dead individuals? Or is it explained to occur within something else than living populations or dead individuals?
Which one is it? Perhaps you could provide a clear and specific answer.
Evolution occurs within living populations, and collections of dead individuals (in the form of fossils) leave behind observable patterns that are predicted only by evolution. You are attempting to use an extreme form of the creationist "How do you know? Where you THERE???" argument, which frankly only makes you look stupid. There's a reason why judges in courtrooms facepalm every time some bozo says it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#54 Jan 16, 2014
humble brother wrote:
Rationale of beliefs:
Belief is by definition the acceptance of something to be true without knowledge. This by definition means that if one believes something to be true, he does not accept the possibility of that something to be false.
If you accept the possibility of fallacy, you by definition do not hold a belief in that regard.
I am personally absolutely unable to form beliefs. I can only accept Trueness only by knowledge, it comes via observation only.
That's because you suffer from a mental defficiency known as extreme egocentrism, which leads you to a position of nihilism. However reality is reality whether you believe in it or not. Just because you personally have no knowledge that does not make concepts invalid.
humble brother wrote:
Read above.
It is not possible to believe something to be True and at the same time accept that it may be false. These positions are mutually exclusive.
-> no beliefs whatsoever have place within science nor in the mind of a scientist with regards to science.
Belief is unnecessary when one has evidence. However accepting something to be correct does NOT mean you cannot consider the possibility that it MIGHT still be wrong. Indeed science REQUIRES the potential for falsifiability, otherwise it is not science. Your understanding of science is flawed. This is because you have taken extreme skepticism to a point beyond rationality, which leads you to reality denial and the belief that your baseless opinions are important. Not to mention your complete and utter total lack of science education.

In short, you're making YEC's look smart. And they think the Flinstones is a science documentary.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#55 Jan 16, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you believe that?
He didn't state any belief. Belief is superfluous in the face of evidence.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#56 Jan 16, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did you ignore the rest of the post? It completed the entire argument!
it is just a word game to avoid the truth with you all.

acceptance-.willingness to believe: willingness to believe that something is true

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#57 Jan 16, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't state any belief. Belief is superfluous in the face of evidence.
acceptance-.willingness to believe: willingness to believe that something is true

To accept something you have to believe it is true. So by lying saying evolution has nothing to do with believing all you are doing is looking like a fool and showing your whole belief of evolution is a lie. Try being honest and stop your word games you might get more peoples attention.

But we know you don't believe in evolution, you accept it. What is the difference?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#58 Jan 16, 2014
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
it is just a word game to avoid the truth with you all.
Well as a fundie you will play 'em.(shrug) What's the "scientific theory" of ID?

Don't worry, even the guys who invented it admitted they don't have one.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#59 Jan 16, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Well as a fundie you will play 'em.(shrug) What's the "scientific theory" of ID?
Don't worry, even the guys who invented it admitted they don't have one.
Poor wittle guy. You have nothing to come back with but to move the goal post. The discussion on hand is acceptance and believing.

“Evolution is Variation”

Since: Nov 13

Dublin, Ireland

#60 Jan 16, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Well as a fundie you will play 'em.(shrug) What's the "scientific theory" of ID?
Don't worry, even the guys who invented it admitted they don't have one.
So what are you trying to say? That you don't believe in evolution but you accept it? or that evolution has nothing to do with believing it is all about acceptance even though acceptance is believing? or you don't believe in what you accept? Explain that nonsense would you. I would accept a sensible answer but I don't believe you can give one.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#61 Jan 16, 2014
Thats a knee slapper wrote:
<quoted text>
acceptance-.willingness to believe: willingness to believe that something is true
To accept something you have to believe it is true. So by lying saying evolution has nothing to do with believing all you are doing is looking like a fool and showing your whole belief of evolution is a lie. Try being honest and stop your word games you might get more peoples attention.
But we know you don't believe in evolution, you accept it. What is the difference?
You can play word games all you like but accepting something as probably true because empirical evidence and logic support it is not the same time as believing something on the basis of faith.

Evolution is accepted by the scientific community because its a theory that explains what is found in nature and has made valid predictions about what should be found, and because no evidence has been found that falsifies it. And that is saying something, because there has been a concerted effort by opponents to find falsifying evidence for 150 years, and they still have nothing. That would be the case of course, if the theory is true, something that never seems to occur to you guys.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min DanFromSmithville 171,580
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 18 min In Six Days 20
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 142,483
Darwin, Marx, and Freud 1 hr Paul Porter1 2
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 2 hr Paul Porter1 213
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Paul Porter1 20,497
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 8 hr Zog Has-fallen 4
More from around the web