|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Na, the fact is that I DISAGREE with some Geology and that's what you don't like. I don't toe the party line so I'm crazy. That's one hypothesis for why people think you're crazy. Another is that you're a dumbfuck fruitloop screwball nutjob crackpot dingbat know-nothing batshit cretinous assclown.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The Flood didn't just collect things, it arranged and classified them. If only Noah had thought to make a few glass cases and some labels, the strata would look like a natural history museum. "Oh look," the water would have said to itself, "another one for the Hall of Trilobites. Memo to self: make sure never ever, not one single time, to mix those up with one single crustacean species that's going to survive me, although for some reason I'm gonna mix 'em together with some though not all crustacean species which I'm going to make extinct. Damn, this flooding business is hard work ... so much to think about, and me only a liquid."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
edge, post #385 writes: Even without radiometric dates, they show very different ages due to cross-cutting relationships. faith, post#391 writes:
Since the only "evidence" YOU have is your unreliable easily disrupted radiometric dating ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I have never argued here "God did it," that's a lie. Well, pretty much everyone who believes in Noah's flood does ascribe it to God. You yourself used to do so, as you stated, for example, here.
But after the Fall and the increasing wickedness of humanity He destroyed the entire earth with water. Before you call Theoderic a liar, then, you should contemplate the possibility that he didn't know you'd changed your mind.
So is any reference to "magic water" or "magic" anything from me. But your water does in fact have magical properties. By analogy, if you were to tell me that you'd seen someone wave a wand and turn a pumpkin into a coach, then even if you didn't use the word magic, even if you denied fervently that what you had seen was magic, then what you are describing is, in fact, magic.
If there is any argument based on magic it's the establishment claim that the sea could rise to enormous depths and fall and rise again, all based on a few fossils in rocks, the depth of which seems to be of no consequence in this magical scenario. Nobody ever treats that as magic but it is physically impossible. And as I also argued, the idea that the Great Unconformity is the root of a mountain chain that was thrust up and then eroded down to enough flatness for the strata of the GC from the Tapeats up to build up from there, is insanely impossible. And of course there is no real evidence for such a thing. But that doesn't stop Geology. Geology can say anything it wants, but a YEC is ridiculed for ideas that are more reasonable than theirs. Hey, Faith. Remember how you don't know anything about geology? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
There is not one true representation in your post of anything I've said. There was a direct quotation from you, with a link to the original post. Many people would think that was a true representation of something you've said, but then you evidently have your own unique take on this as on so much else. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Nested hierarchies is some kind of article of faith Hey, Faith, you remember how you don't know anything about biology?
Although I've looked at discussions of this phenomenon I must be missing something. Could you please explain graphically and in detail what a nested hierarchy is? Thank you. Oh, you do remember. Then why make shit up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The geologic column is presented to us hapless laypersons as a continuous upward stacking of sediments ... No it isn't, you asinine buffoon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
How could there ever have been a Geologic Timescale at all then, or a Geologic Column to the depth of what we see in the GC-GS area? That is, how could there have ever been an actual COLUMN, a STACK of sediments * sighs deeply * Next time you pretend to have read and understood my book, I shall remind you of this.
Read.
That is, you seem to believe that there were many risings and fallings of land and/or sea during the laying down of the whole thing, and yet the deposition seems to have continued quite consistently ... Bollocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That's nothing to what I'd say to someone who insisted that 2 + 2 = 5 or that the sky is green with purple spots. My "religious fanaticism" on such subjects knows no bounds. And yet there is not the least amount of controversy on these issues. Perhaps you should try again, maybe think of an answer which is not completely stupid. Can you do that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Don't see any evidence for your assumptions, they're just the usual Old Earth assumptions, conjured out of thin air. You have about half a dozen purely fictitious speculations in that post for which there is no evidence whatever ... Thank you for your detailed in-depth analysis of where edge has gone wrong. The scales have fallen from my eyes. When you said without a shred of evidence that statements you didn't even specify were "purely fictitious", I rushed out and burned my geology textbooks. Praise Jesus!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I've made case after case based on various observations of such things as the strata, the fossils and the decrease in genetic diversity that is the necessary result of microevolution. You did. Oh how we laughed. And the inability of creationists, yourself included to think of any argument that isn't idiotic does tend to explain the absence of scientific controversy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The fact of the matter in my case is that years before I became a Christian, when I still considered myself an atheist, I read the usual popular accounts of evolution and at times tried to track down the evidence for it. It always seemed to disappear into assertions and assumptions. So you suffered from abysmal research skills even when you were an atheist? It's not something that Christianity has done to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Whooee, was that INSPIRING! A lot of assertive words there, declaring the status quo ... But Faith, this is what the thread is about. The OP didn't attack evolution by saying that some feature of the fossil record, or the anatomy of aardvarks, or the genome of zebras, or the biogeography of giraffes, or whatever, was a challenge to evolution. Instead he asked "Why is evolution so controversial", and claimed that "a growing number of scientists are frowning upon the modern synthesis". To point out that evolution is the "status quo" is therefore the only on-topic thing that there is to be said. If he'd made false statements about (for example) the fossil record, then we'd be deluging him with facts about the fossil record. As his false statement was about the scientific consensus, the only on-topic thing to talk about is that. We don't get to choose what falsehoods creationists come out with, we just answer them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It is entirely possible to believe the above without accepting the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, which is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics with Darwinism. One states that variations in an organism never go past a certain limit ... No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Simple Instead of being 1.33% divergent from chimps, we are now found to be 5% divergent from chimps. There are simply not enough beneficial mutations to explain a divergence from the chimp. Ah, one of my favorite varieties of creationist nonsense ... the non-quantitative quantitative argument. Hooray, you can prove that you're right with numbers. But without any actual math, 'cos that's hard.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024