|
Author
|
Topic: Why is evolution so controversial?
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 61 of 969 (724009)
04-11-2014 1:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by Cedre
04-11-2014 1:32 PM
|
|
Re: Why so hostile?
In medical school we're taught just how complex a machine the human body is and I cannot imagine how how evolution can account for our nervous system, or digestive system even our skeletal system. Rejecting something out of incredulity can be cured by actually learning about the subject.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 1:32 PM | | Cedre has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 67 of 969 (724018)
04-11-2014 2:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by Cedre
04-11-2014 2:07 PM
|
|
Re: Why so hostile?
I am not interested in peer review I am interested in the truth! Scientists who reject evolution don't publish their opinions in peer review journals because their rejections are based on religions beliefs and not scientific facts.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 2:07 PM | | Cedre has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 85 of 969 (724048)
04-11-2014 8:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 82 by Cedre
04-11-2014 7:18 PM
|
|
Re: Why so hostile?
Books are not peer reviewed journal articles.
So what? The bottom-line is the authors of those books give their scientific reasons for rejecting evolution in those books? If your peers don't have to review your reasons as being scientific, then you can write a book saying whatever you want and call it scientific. If you can't pass your peers' reviews and publish an article, then you'd hafta write a book instead. If you were lying about your religious views by calling them scientific, then you'd have no articles and only books.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 82 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 7:18 PM | | Cedre has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 86 of 969 (724049)
04-11-2014 8:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 84 by Cedre
04-11-2014 7:48 PM
|
|
Re: Wow you're the best!
Psst. Don't feed the trolls.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 84 by Cedre, posted 04-11-2014 7:48 PM | | Cedre has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 88 by hooah212002, posted 04-11-2014 8:29 PM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 186 of 969 (724246)
04-15-2014 10:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 184 by NoNukes
04-15-2014 9:21 AM
|
|
Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
the astronauts would have become blinds.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 184 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2014 9:21 AM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 189 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2014 10:53 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 193 of 969 (724253)
04-15-2014 11:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 189 by NoNukes
04-15-2014 10:53 AM
|
|
Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
You said that the astronauts would become blinds, like these kind:
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 189 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2014 10:53 AM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 197 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2014 12:20 PM | | New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 206 of 969 (724282)
04-15-2014 5:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 205 by Faith
04-15-2014 4:52 PM
|
|
Re: Good grief!
Of COURSE "cow" represents all mammals! It was originally a Rabbit in the Precambrian. But really, any mammal will work, because according to evolutionary theory, the Precambrian happened millions of years before mammals evolved. So if we found out that there were, actually, mammals in the precambrian layers, then we'd have to rethink our current theory.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 205 by Faith, posted 04-15-2014 4:52 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 208 of 969 (724288)
04-15-2014 5:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 207 by NoNukes
04-15-2014 5:15 PM
|
|
Re: Good grief!
Did you really think that cow was anything other than the first mammal on the poster's mind? Honestly, I thought it had something to do with alliteration.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 207 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2014 5:15 PM | | NoNukes has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 210 of 969 (724290)
04-15-2014 5:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 209 by Faith
04-15-2014 5:22 PM
|
|
Re: Calling AZPaul!
both CS and NN having suffered some kind of mental collapse Yeah, and you're just a stupid bitch.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 209 by Faith, posted 04-15-2014 5:22 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 247 of 969 (724370)
04-16-2014 3:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 245 by RAZD
04-16-2014 1:48 PM
|
|
Re: a proper falsification test vs an undoable test
Curiously, imho, the attitude that this Precambrian Cow type of test is a "good" falsification test of evolution smacks of self-satisfaction, confirmation bias and hubris, rather than a hard skeptical scientific developed rugged test. Its a cliche. It doesn't matter if its the precambrian nor if its a cow. The point is that we have a good geological record of the different eras that show the gradual development of more and more diverse species, without exception. We don't find modern species in the older layers. If we did, that'd be a big problem.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 245 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2014 1:48 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 248 of 969 (724371)
04-16-2014 3:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
04-16-2014 2:58 PM
|
|
Re: You can't disprove a construction built out of hot air
To my mind there is nothing substantial to the OE or the ToE Yeah, well your mind sucks. You can't even understand the most basic facts about our world because you can't stop yourself from worshiping a book as being flawless.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 246 by Faith, posted 04-16-2014 2:58 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 478 of 969 (724836)
04-21-2014 1:06 PM
|
|
|
Oh look
Another thread about evolution that Faith drug completely off topic into a retarded discussion about The Flud.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 480 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2014 4:47 PM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 531 of 969 (737889)
10-01-2014 4:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 525 by PaulGL
09-28-2014 6:24 PM
|
|
Re: What if God used evolution to create man?
What if "what ifs" are pointless? .
What if huge copy-&-pastes are against the forum guidelines?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 525 by PaulGL, posted 09-28-2014 6:24 PM | | PaulGL has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 540 of 969 (739268)
10-22-2014 11:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 538 by zaius137
10-22-2014 11:30 AM
|
|
Re: What if God used evolution to create man?
The "effective population (Ne)" is approximately 10,000 in the current population of ~ 7 billion. You got a source for that?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 538 by zaius137, posted 10-22-2014 11:30 AM | | zaius137 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 541 by Dr Jack, posted 10-22-2014 11:50 AM | | New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 542 by zaius137, posted 10-22-2014 12:08 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 544 of 969 (739290)
10-22-2014 1:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 542 by zaius137
10-22-2014 12:08 PM
|
|
Re: What if God used evolution to create man?
Got it, thanks. But, that is neither evidence for a young genome nor that our DNA denies common descent. It is evidence of a bottle neck in the human population. We're aware of that.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 542 by zaius137, posted 10-22-2014 12:08 PM | | zaius137 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 545 by zaius137, posted 10-22-2014 1:34 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
