Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1687 Aug 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW you are a real God hater. How did you come up with Goddidit with magic from talking about the definition of kind?
Again the question was;
How would science fill in the blank in this sentence?
Largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, rock bass, stripe bass are all different species but all are __________
1. kinds of Bass.
2. types of Bass.
3. fill in your own.
Now it was answered with members of the family Centrarchidae.
The next question was;
Now how would the other 99% of the English language speaking people finish that same sentence?
And you give dumb it down and Goddidit with magic for an answer. LOL.
Point being all are not scientists and do not speak in scientific terms and you feel that is reason to ridicule the way they word something? It is petty and stupid. Like you think you could hang with scientists, do their work and talk their lingo. They would leave you behind eating dirt.
Yeah but you are kind of missing the point.

Superficially, the word "kinds" seems to cover it and the bible story makes sense. But when we look more closely at how life is arranged and at evolutionary relations even including those creationists cannot deny and call 'micro', the whole idea of kinds dissolves into nonsense. When you look into their attemots at kind based classification they end up in al sorts of unresolvable problems. I have seen creatonists trying ti determine the magic line sparating human and ape and they cannot do it.

The primary problem for them is convergence, predicted by evolution and observed repeatedly, where clearly different kinds today are found to converge to a common point. Ape hominid, cat dog, dino bird, even amphibian fish.

Kinds as a concept does not even begin to manage these observations, but evolition both predicted and explains them

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1688 Aug 21, 2013
More atrocious mobile text sorry hope you got the gist
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1689 Aug 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW you are a real God hater.
Just for saying that? I could LOVE God and just be in total awe of his awesome magic! In actuality I can't actually hate something which has not been demonstrated to exist. It would be like hating mermaids. Pointless. I'm not a big fan of liars for Jesus though. But even if I was a God-hater, how is that relevant to its validity as a scientific concept?
replaytime wrote:
How did you come up with Goddidit with magic from talking about the definition of kind?
Because it's the Goddidit crowd who claim the definition of "kind" is scientific. So someone asked them to present a scientific definition. Instead you posed a counter-question which does not actually address your problem:
replaytime wrote:
Again the question was;
How would science fill in the blank in this sentence?
Largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, rock bass, stripe bass are all different species but all are __________
1. kinds of Bass.
2. types of Bass.
3. fill in your own.
Now it was answered with members of the family Centrarchidae.
And your answer is?
replaytime wrote:
The next question was;
Now how would the other 99% of the English language speaking people finish that same sentence?
Which is irrelevant when we're talking about the validity of scientific concepts. For instance in colloquial usage if someone says "theory" they mean "wild guess". But when someone conflates those two terms on here we treat them as if they're stupid. With good reason. We have to be talking the same language and using the proper definitions where appropriate or otherwise discussion is not possible.
replaytime wrote:
And you give dumb it down and Goddidit with magic for an answer. LOL.
Not me, it's the fundies who claim reality is wrong cuz Goddidit with magic.
replaytime wrote:
Point being all are not scientists and do not speak in scientific terms and you feel that is reason to ridicule the way they word something?
If they are non-scientists who claim science is wrong BECAUSE Goddidit with magic? Then yes, ridicule is quite appropriate, unless they can discuss the subject appropriately (such as using words like "theory" correctly) and make a rational argument for their case.
replaytime wrote:
It is petty and stupid. Like you think you could hang with scientists, do their work and talk their lingo. They would leave you behind eating dirt.
I'm sure they could. However you are forgetting that some people here have science credentials, and I've been on other forums where scientists have posted and had little problem conversing with them. And for some reason they treat me more like an adult than any of the fundies who turn up. Of course how "mean" you percieve us to be is ultimately irrelevant to the validity of science. The scenario here is science versus invisible Jewmagic, and fundies claim the latter is science. If they are having trouble backing up their claims in a scientific manner that is NOT my problem. Since you ARE, it's yours.

So what's the "scientific theory" of creationism?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1690 Aug 21, 2013
_Susan_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Well darn Dude, I thought it had been done with magic. You know turtles all the way down.
Sounds good to me. At least that one's got legs to stand on!

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#1691 Aug 21, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds good to me. At least that one's got legs to stand on!
LOL

How have you been?

:)
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#1692 Aug 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW you are a real God hater. How did you come up with Goddidit with magic from talking about the definition of kind?
Again the question was;
How would science fill in the blank in this sentence?
Largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, rock bass, stripe bass are all different species but all are __________
1. kinds of Bass.
2. types of Bass.
3. fill in your own.
"Species" of bass.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#1693 Aug 21, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it's the Goddidit crowd who claim the definition of "kind" is scientific. So someone asked them to present a scientific definition. Instead you posed a counter-question which does not actually address your problem:
The post I commented on SZ stated it has to be a "working definition". What I gave was a working definition. SZ then replies and says "wrong I asked for a working science definition."

I can't be wrong when I gave what was asked for. It is not my fault when the answer given to "working definition" was read, it was not liked so the question was then changed to "working science definition".

working definition - noun
1.A definition that is chosen for an occasion and may not fully conform with established or authoritative definitions. Not knowing of established definitions would be grounds for selecting or devising a working definition.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/working_definit...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1694 Aug 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The post I commented on SZ stated it has to be a "working definition". What I gave was a working definition. SZ then replies and says "wrong I asked for a working science definition."
I can't be wrong when I gave what was asked for. It is not my fault when the answer given to "working definition" was read, it was not liked so the question was then changed to "working science definition".
working definition - noun
1.A definition that is chosen for an occasion and may not fully conform with established or authoritative definitions. Not knowing of established definitions would be grounds for selecting or devising a working definition.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/working_definit...
No, what you gave was not a working definition. You don't know what the term means. It does not mean "It works for me, hyuk hyuk hyuk." Obviously I was asking for a usable definition of it. That means you would by using the definition as given be able to tell if two animals were of the same "kind" and why.

For example creationists cannot explain why all bacteria are a "kind" and all eukaryotes are not. There is a wider diversity of bacteria than there is of eukaryotes and yet they want to divide the latter up into many different kinds. It is not logical, it is not consistent, to use this false method of differentiation.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#1695 Aug 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what you gave was not a working definition. You don't know what the term means. It does not mean "It works for me, hyuk hyuk hyuk." Obviously I was asking for a usable definition of it. That means you would by using the definition as given be able to tell if two animals were of the same "kind" and why.
For example creationists cannot explain why all bacteria are a "kind" and all eukaryotes are not. There is a wider diversity of bacteria than there is of eukaryotes and yet they want to divide the latter up into many different kinds. It is not logical, it is not consistent, to use this false method of differentiation.
I gave you the link to the definition of "working definition" and it is not from a creationist site. Those are your rules.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#1696 Aug 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what you gave was not a working definition. You don't know what the term means. It does not mean "It works for me, hyuk hyuk hyuk." Obviously I was asking for a usable definition of it. That means you would by using the definition as given be able to tell if two animals were of the same "kind" and why.
For example creationists cannot explain why all bacteria are a "kind" and all eukaryotes are not. There is a wider diversity of bacteria than there is of eukaryotes and yet they want to divide the latter up into many different kinds. It is not logical, it is not consistent, to use this false method of differentiation.
It is not my fault or anyone else's that you can't properly word a question for what you want. And it does not make their answer wrong for the answer they give to your poorly worded question just because you don't like the answer. Then you change the wording of the question and claim they did not answer the "right" question and should have known what you meant". You know what I mean?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1697 Aug 21, 2013
_Susan_ wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
How have you been?
:)
Dandy. Hope everything's still fluffy with you!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1698 Aug 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave you the link to the definition of "working definition" and it is not from a creationist site. Those are your rules.
Then you must now use that definition to help explain creationism.

Take your time.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#1699 Aug 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
The next question was;
Now how would the other 99% of the English language speaking people finish that same sentence?
Here's the problem with your line of reasoning Replay...

In _ANY_ field there is going to be a vocabulary used by professionals which differs from that used by laymen.

You'll notice that doctors are EXTREMELY precise when describing where something is. Words like "back", "front" or "above" are too easily misunderstood.

I'm sure the same holds true for baseball players or auto-mechanics.

It's irrelevant which words "99%" of the people would use to describe something. The 1% that actually know what they are talking about are using better, more precise words.

This is, hands down, the BEST way to determine if something should be taken seriously as a science.

New Agers talk about "energy fields" and "auras" but try and get any two of them to give you a precise definition.

Try to get a Creationist to give a definition of "kind" or to tell you how to determine what "kind" a particular animal is.

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#1700 Aug 21, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Dandy. Hope everything's still fluffy with you!
Yes it is, thanks.

:)

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#1701 Aug 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Replaytime, it does not matter how uneducated people would answer that question. If you are having a scientific debate and are debating terminology then the correct answer would be given by people who were educated in that particular subject.
Your logical error is:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
And your fallacy is......
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-...

Like I said. Not everyone is a scientist and not everyone speaks in scientific terminology.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#1702 Aug 21, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you must now use that definition to help explain creationism.
Take your time.
No I don't. I gave a working definition of kind. That was what was asked for.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#1703 Aug 21, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the problem with your line of reasoning Replay...
In _ANY_ field there is going to be a vocabulary used by professionals which differs from that used by laymen.
You'll notice that doctors are EXTREMELY precise when describing where something is. Words like "back", "front" or "above" are too easily misunderstood.
I'm sure the same holds true for baseball players or auto-mechanics.
It's irrelevant which words "99%" of the people would use to describe something. The 1% that actually know what they are talking about are using better, more precise words.
This is, hands down, the BEST way to determine if something should be taken seriously as a science.
New Agers talk about "energy fields" and "auras" but try and get any two of them to give you a precise definition.
Try to get a Creationist to give a definition of "kind" or to tell you how to determine what "kind" a particular animal is.
And here is your problem. Being this is a website and to be more formal it is a gossip, BS, waste your time because you are bored web site. You break it down in percentages of how many on here are "real scientists that hold PHD's and how many are just normal people. Then you can see that most here are just normal people with the exception of a few that think they are as smart as Einstein but really aren't so the conversation here is not between scientists, it is between normal people. So being the majority here are normal people, then the majority of the words will be what normal people use, then we have a few that think they are as smart as a scientists and will try to use big words to confuse the others but when it all boils down to it, there is nothing here but normal people stating what they believe and beating on each other.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1704 Aug 22, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don't. I gave a working definition of kind. That was what was asked for.
that is part of the problem for creationists. There is no consistent definition of KIND and no way to develop one. Thats the whole point!

KIND, as a concept, shows its flaws when we look at the fossil record and see obvious convergence between different KINDS as we go back. And the further we go, the larger scale the convergence, just as evolution predicted and creationism cannot begin to explain.

Kind does not work. A branching nested hierarchy does.
TIPI

Columbus, OH

#1705 Aug 22, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>that is part of the problem for creationists. There is no consistent definition of KIND and no way to develop one. Thats the whole point!
KIND, as a concept, shows its flaws when we look at the fossil record and see obvious convergence between different KINDS as we go back. And the further we go, the larger scale the convergence, just as evolution predicted and creationism cannot begin to explain.
Kind does not work. A branching nested hierarchy does.
If humans are apes then can the apes become more refined and successful by selective breeding just as dogs have been from the wolf? Do you know that most of the information in DNA is for reproducing structure such as for bipedalism and in some kinds of species it is prevalent in the code not to be misconstrued as a tree of life?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#1706 Aug 22, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
And here is your problem. Being this is a website and to be more formal it is a gossip, BS, waste your time because you are bored web site. You break it down in percentages of how many on here are "real scientists that hold PHD's and how many are just normal people. Then you can see that most here are just normal people with the exception of a few that think they are as smart as Einstein but really aren't so the conversation here is not between scientists, it is between normal people. So being the majority here are normal people, then the majority of the words will be what normal people use, then we have a few that think they are as smart as a scientists and will try to use big words to confuse the others but when it all boils down to it, there is nothing here but normal people stating what they believe and beating on each other.
And therein lies the gist of the entire debate regarding teaching the science behind the Theory of Evolution in public schools.

YOU would have us dumb kids down by teaching "Intelligent Design" or worse, "Creationism" as science in public schools, while the rest of us prefer to have our kids learn science.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min The Northener 34,113
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... 38 min FREE SERVANT 32
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr ChristineM 14,843
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr MIDutch 151,284
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Aura Mytha 199,194
My Story Part 1 Fri JanusBifrons 1
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Fri Don Barros Serrano 179,706
More from around the web