who honestly doesn't believe in evolution?

[Father Time]

Forget the whole money analogy, it's real simple an organism will keep getting mutations and change until it's a brand new species.

 

[Bill Angel]

Last night I heard a black Baptist preacher assert quite emphatically that "Evolution is a Lie and Charles Darwin is a Liar!" This fellow also believes in the literal truth of the Bible. I think that one possible explanation for his emphatic rejection of evolution (and scientific empiricism) is that there had been in the past pseudo scientific theories that were concocted to assert that blacks were somehow genetically inferior to whites. I think that his belligerent antagonism to evolution (and his embracing of the myth of Adam and Eve) is linked to unfortunate historical associations between pseudo-science and racism.
I think that the Nazis also attempted to concoct some form of pseudo-scientific "master race" theory, with Nordic Races at the top of the evolutionary pyramid.

 

[HUGGY]

Cecile1200 quote:
"f you're dumb enough to think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, that explains why you're an evolutionist."

This might get the dumbest post of the year award.

Darwin didn't invent evolution. He found proof of it's effects.

Darwin also studied to be a preist. Clearly he wasn't genius. What he was..was thorough and honest.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

See, we're actually very close to saying the same thing.

I contend that an organism as selfaware energy, is able to rearrange itself energetically to meet the new challenge and when we look at it with our physical and limited human understanding, we call it a "random mutation"

Sound fascinating. You should form a hypothesis, research, and publish.

As it stands, it's rather pointless to debate your opinion on genetics when you have absolutely no data to back it up.

I'll stick to the notion that mutations are due to errors in DNA reading or coding and not something that is directed by a cell.

Yet, you've told me that people seem to be walking slowly away from the "Random mutation" nonsense.

Moreover, what you've described IS an organism consciously rearranging itself!

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Yet, you've told me that people seem to be walking slowly away from the "Random mutation" nonsense.

Moreover, what you've described IS an organism consciously rearranging itself!

No one is walking away from random mutation. I will again repeat that random mutations allow for non-random selection and growth of those mutations. If you don't understand that sentence, you don't understand the concept of evolution.

Furthermore, there is no conscious rearrangement of organism. You cannon consciously re-organize your genes anymore than a bacteria. What there is is errors in replicating DNA when a bacteria divides into two. These errors are random, and allow for change to the DNA.

 

[geauxtohell]

There's a big difference between "not fully proven and subject to revision" and "not proven", so don't try to split semantic hairs with me. This sort of thing masquerading as an argument is EXACTLY why I'm so skeptical of evolution and its adherents.

Ditto "Darwin's original theory". I said "Darwinism", not "Darwin's original theory". I'm not interested in verbal shell games. If anyone is muddying the waters here, it's you. I've been very precise in my word choices to say exactly what I mean. As for dishonesty, your attempts to deflect onto things other than the true bone of contention on this subject speaks for itself.

I don't want you to say anything. The thread topic is "Who doesn't believe in evolution?" I answered that question. The topic wasn't "Justify your lack of belief in evolution to dipwads", nor was it "Listen to dipwads try to convince you to believe in evolution without ever actually offering proof". If I had a question, I would have asked it and there would be no doubt that I had done so.

As I said, you'll be happy to know, if you don't believe in "Classic Darwinism" you are in good company. No one believes in it anymore.

If you don't believe in the modern synthesis, or can't at least offer more criticisms than the semantical shell games you are famous for; then I won't try to convince you.

I have better things to do than toss pearls to the perpetually dense.

 

[geauxtohell]

Actually, Mendel was a contemporary of Darwin's and was not impressed by him. This might explain why Darwin's supporters virtually ignored Mendel's work well into the twentieth century. Are you trying to say that Mendel's work supports Darwinistic evolution, or merely that you think Darwin would have come up with better ideas had he known more about Mendel's work before he published?

I've never seen anything that suggested Mendel and Darwin had a conflict with each other.

When I say, "Not impressed with him", I refer to his work and theories, not the man personally.



Something to remember when people are touting a "consensus of the scientific community" as proof that something is true.



You'd have to take that viewpoint up with William Bateson. William Bateson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He said, in his Mendel's Principles of Heredity, concerning the delay in acceptance of Mendel's work, "the cause is unquestionably to be found in that neglect of the experimental study of the problem of Species which supervened on the general acceptance of the Darwinian doctrines".



And? Am I supposed to be impressed that Darwin KNEW he was slinging bullshit? Why am I supposed to care that HE would have approved of MENDEL?

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie



Really? So now you're going to tell us how the study of genetics "supports" evolution, right? And you're going to do it without any verbal three-card Monty to try to make "evolution" mean something else, yes?

So to answer you last question: both.

If you're dumb enough to think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, that explains why you're an evolutionist.

If you're too stupid to grasp the simple analogy and why it's absurd to get wrapped up in "Macro" and "micro" evolution then I can see why you are in the dark.

Intentionally in the dark, I presume.

If you don't support evolution, what is your theory for diversity of life?

You would certainly have to reject Intelligent Design, so are you a straight up creationist?

I understand the analogy, and I stand by my statement. If you think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, you're a dumbass, and I can see why you're stupid enough to be an evolutionist.

Head up your colon, I presume.

Why do I have to have a theory in order to choose not to believe the one you offer? Where is it written that I can't just say, "you haven't convinced me yet"?

And I don't "have" to reject anything, and I have to tell you that your attempt to make this into a "those stupid religious nuts" argument instead of simply responding to what I'm saying is yet another standard, textbook evolutionist dodge which makes me skeptical of anything they have to say.

What are you so afraid of, that you have to try to project your talking points onto me?

You can believe whatever you want. You just can't debate it. Pretty simple concept really.

The rest of this post is just more of the same bullshit that I presume flows from your claptrap as you mutter words in sequence with keystrokes.

 

[geauxtohell]

I understand the analogy, and I stand by my statement. If you think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, you're a dumbass

Actually you completely missed the analogy, because you read it literally instead of figuratively as it was meant. If I may rephrase it, he is making a statement such as "you believe a penny represents money but not a dollar". It's essentially saying that this ridiculous made up idea of microevolution is the penny to macroevolution's dollar. They're both different denominations of the exact same system.

And as for someone who tells people they shouldn't just make claims without support, you sure are making quite a few yourself. So let's start here: what part of evolution do you think has not been significantly demonstrated? Phylogenetics? Phenotype? You tell me where the gap in information is, or what information is being misrepresented or used for erroneous conclusions.

That's exactly what I was saying. But Cecille knew that. She isn't here to discuss anything. She basically is here to toss out insults since she is, apparently, some sort of rage-a-haulic who gets off on that kind of behavior.

That being the case, don't expect any sort of logical discussion out of her. It's not that she is incapable of such a conversation, it's just that she is not interested in it.

Did I say that out loud?

 

[geauxtohell]

See, we're actually very close to saying the same thing.

I contend that an organism as selfaware energy, is able to rearrange itself energetically to meet the new challenge and when we look at it with our physical and limited human understanding, we call it a "random mutation"

Sound fascinating. You should form a hypothesis, research, and publish.

As it stands, it's rather pointless to debate your opinion on genetics when you have absolutely no data to back it up.

I'll stick to the notion that mutations are due to errors in DNA reading or coding and not something that is directed by a cell.

Yet, you've told me that people seem to be walking slowly away from the "Random mutation" nonsense.

Moreover, what you've described IS an organism consciously rearranging itself!

I did? Where did I say that?

For the record, what I really believe is the notion that evolution is self directed is fucking too absurd for an audience.

But if that floats your boat, go for it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I understand the analogy, and I stand by my statement. If you think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, you're a dumbass

Actually you completely missed the analogy, because you read it literally instead of figuratively as it was meant. If I may rephrase it, he is making a statement such as "you believe a penny represents money but not a dollar". It's essentially saying that this ridiculous made up idea of microevolution is the penny to macroevolution's dollar. They're both different denominations of the exact same system.

I could probably care less about whatever insane stretch you want to pretend is the "real" interpretation of what he said, but it would likely require elective surgery. If that's what he meant, then that should have been what he said. It ISN'T what he said, and I only read English. I don't read minds.

And as for someone who tells people they shouldn't just make claims without support, you sure are making quite a few yourself. So let's start here: what part of evolution do you think has not been significantly demonstrated? Phylogenetics? Phenotype? You tell me where the gap in information is, or what information is being misrepresented or used for erroneous conclusions.

Pretty much every point of Darwinistic evolution - and don't even try to start with that whole "Darwin's original theory" hairsplitting with me. It's not working for him, and it won't work for you - is too weak on evidence to warrant my belief.

Oh, and tossing around jargon in an attempt to intimidate me doesn't work either. You should know that by now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Forget the whole money analogy, it's real simple an organism will keep getting mutations and change until it's a brand new species.

Yes, thank you, I understand the theory and assumptions involved. What's also really simple is that that's all it is: unproven theory and assumptions.

 

[geauxtohell]

I understand the analogy, and I stand by my statement. If you think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, you're a dumbass

Actually you completely missed the analogy, because you read it literally instead of figuratively as it was meant. If I may rephrase it, he is making a statement such as "you believe a penny represents money but not a dollar". It's essentially saying that this ridiculous made up idea of microevolution is the penny to macroevolution's dollar. They're both different denominations of the exact same system.

I could probably care less about whatever insane stretch you want to pretend is the "real" interpretation of what he said, but it would likely require elective surgery. If that's what he meant, then that should have been what he said. It ISN'T what he said, and I only read English. I don't read minds.

And as for someone who tells people they shouldn't just make claims without support, you sure are making quite a few yourself. So let's start here: what part of evolution do you think has not been significantly demonstrated? Phylogenetics? Phenotype? You tell me where the gap in information is, or what information is being misrepresented or used for erroneous conclusions.

Pretty much every point of Darwinistic evolution - and don't even try to start with that whole "Darwin's original theory" hairsplitting with me. It's not working for him, and it won't work for you - is too weak on evidence to warrant my belief.

Oh, and tossing around jargon in an attempt to intimidate me doesn't work either. You should know that by now.

No, that was exactly what I meant.

But you already knew that didn't you?

Here for your nightly dose of rage? It must have been a rough day in the office, huh?

 

[Cecilie1200]

There's a big difference between "not fully proven and subject to revision" and "not proven", so don't try to split semantic hairs with me. This sort of thing masquerading as an argument is EXACTLY why I'm so skeptical of evolution and its adherents.

Ditto "Darwin's original theory". I said "Darwinism", not "Darwin's original theory". I'm not interested in verbal shell games. If anyone is muddying the waters here, it's you. I've been very precise in my word choices to say exactly what I mean. As for dishonesty, your attempts to deflect onto things other than the true bone of contention on this subject speaks for itself.

I don't want you to say anything. The thread topic is "Who doesn't believe in evolution?" I answered that question. The topic wasn't "Justify your lack of belief in evolution to dipwads", nor was it "Listen to dipwads try to convince you to believe in evolution without ever actually offering proof". If I had a question, I would have asked it and there would be no doubt that I had done so.

As I said, you'll be happy to know, if you don't believe in "Classic Darwinism" you are in good company. No one believes in it anymore.

And as I said, that hairsplitting isn't going to work on me, nor is ignoring what I say to continue arguing against what you WISH I had said.

If you don't believe in the modern synthesis, or can't at least offer more criticisms than the semantical shell games you are famous for; then I won't try to convince you.

I have better things to do than toss pearls to the perpetually dense.

Must be why you haven't tossed a single pearl so far.

I am, however, very sorry that you came in here spoiling for a fight against an evolution denier and just can't force me to say the things you want to hear. I know it's hard when your opponents insist on diverging from the script and thinking for themselves.

 

[geauxtohell]

There's a big difference between "not fully proven and subject to revision" and "not proven", so don't try to split semantic hairs with me. This sort of thing masquerading as an argument is EXACTLY why I'm so skeptical of evolution and its adherents.

Ditto "Darwin's original theory". I said "Darwinism", not "Darwin's original theory". I'm not interested in verbal shell games. If anyone is muddying the waters here, it's you. I've been very precise in my word choices to say exactly what I mean. As for dishonesty, your attempts to deflect onto things other than the true bone of contention on this subject speaks for itself.

I don't want you to say anything. The thread topic is "Who doesn't believe in evolution?" I answered that question. The topic wasn't "Justify your lack of belief in evolution to dipwads", nor was it "Listen to dipwads try to convince you to believe in evolution without ever actually offering proof". If I had a question, I would have asked it and there would be no doubt that I had done so.

As I said, you'll be happy to know, if you don't believe in "Classic Darwinism" you are in good company. No one believes in it anymore.

And as I said, that hairsplitting isn't going to work on me, nor is ignoring what I say to continue arguing against what you WISH I had said.

If you don't believe in the modern synthesis, or can't at least offer more criticisms than the semantical shell games you are famous for; then I won't try to convince you.

I have better things to do than toss pearls to the perpetually dense.

Must be why you haven't tossed a single pearl so far.

I am, however, very sorry that you came in here spoiling for a fight against an evolution denier and just can't force me to say the things you want to hear. I know it's hard when your opponents insist on diverging from the script and thinking for themselves.

I am not spoiling for a fight. I could care less what you personally believe. If you have no real facts or position to offer than "I just don't believe it" then far be it from me to waste bandwidth.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've never seen anything that suggested Mendel and Darwin had a conflict with each other.

When I say, "Not impressed with him", I refer to his work and theories, not the man personally.



Something to remember when people are touting a "consensus of the scientific community" as proof that something is true.



You'd have to take that viewpoint up with William Bateson. William Bateson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He said, in his Mendel's Principles of Heredity, concerning the delay in acceptance of Mendel's work, "the cause is unquestionably to be found in that neglect of the experimental study of the problem of Species which supervened on the general acceptance of the Darwinian doctrines".



And? Am I supposed to be impressed that Darwin KNEW he was slinging bullshit? Why am I supposed to care that HE would have approved of MENDEL?

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie



Really? So now you're going to tell us how the study of genetics "supports" evolution, right? And you're going to do it without any verbal three-card Monty to try to make "evolution" mean something else, yes?

So to answer you last question: both.



If you're too stupid to grasp the simple analogy and why it's absurd to get wrapped up in "Macro" and "micro" evolution then I can see why you are in the dark.

Intentionally in the dark, I presume.

If you don't support evolution, what is your theory for diversity of life?

You would certainly have to reject Intelligent Design, so are you a straight up creationist?

I understand the analogy, and I stand by my statement. If you think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, you're a dumbass, and I can see why you're stupid enough to be an evolutionist.

Head up your colon, I presume.

Why do I have to have a theory in order to choose not to believe the one you offer? Where is it written that I can't just say, "you haven't convinced me yet"?

And I don't "have" to reject anything, and I have to tell you that your attempt to make this into a "those stupid religious nuts" argument instead of simply responding to what I'm saying is yet another standard, textbook evolutionist dodge which makes me skeptical of anything they have to say.

What are you so afraid of, that you have to try to project your talking points onto me?

You can believe whatever you want. You just can't debate it. Pretty simple concept really.

The rest of this post is just more of the same bullshit that I presume flows from your claptrap as you mutter words in sequence with keystrokes.

What makes you think I'm trying to debate anything? I realize you seem to think that anytime someone dares to diverge from your beliefs, you have the godgiven right to demand they justify themselves to you, and that they feel some obligation to do so, but you should really get over yourself.

As I said, I merely answered the OP question. As yet, I feel no compulsion whatsoever to debate anything with you OR to justify myself to you. If you want to try to provide the evidence that, as yet, has not been provided sufficient to incline me to believe in evolution, feel free. Just don't flatter yourself that you're entitled to any explanation of beliefs on my part. I didn't start this discussion.

 

[geauxtohell]

When I say, "Not impressed with him", I refer to his work and theories, not the man personally.



Something to remember when people are touting a "consensus of the scientific community" as proof that something is true.



You'd have to take that viewpoint up with William Bateson. William Bateson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He said, in his Mendel's Principles of Heredity, concerning the delay in acceptance of Mendel's work, "the cause is unquestionably to be found in that neglect of the experimental study of the problem of Species which supervened on the general acceptance of the Darwinian doctrines".



And? Am I supposed to be impressed that Darwin KNEW he was slinging bullshit? Why am I supposed to care that HE would have approved of MENDEL?

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie



Really? So now you're going to tell us how the study of genetics "supports" evolution, right? And you're going to do it without any verbal three-card Monty to try to make "evolution" mean something else, yes?



I understand the analogy, and I stand by my statement. If you think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, you're a dumbass, and I can see why you're stupid enough to be an evolutionist.

Head up your colon, I presume.

Why do I have to have a theory in order to choose not to believe the one you offer? Where is it written that I can't just say, "you haven't convinced me yet"?

And I don't "have" to reject anything, and I have to tell you that your attempt to make this into a "those stupid religious nuts" argument instead of simply responding to what I'm saying is yet another standard, textbook evolutionist dodge which makes me skeptical of anything they have to say.

What are you so afraid of, that you have to try to project your talking points onto me?

You can believe whatever you want. You just can't debate it. Pretty simple concept really.

The rest of this post is just more of the same bullshit that I presume flows from your claptrap as you mutter words in sequence with keystrokes.

What makes you think I'm trying to debate anything? I realize you seem to think that anytime someone dares to diverge from your beliefs, you have the godgiven right to demand they justify themselves to you, and that they feel some obligation to do so, but you should really get over yourself.

As I said, I merely answered the OP question. As yet, I feel no compulsion whatsoever to debate anything with you OR to justify myself to you. If you want to try to provide the evidence that, as yet, has not been provided sufficient to incline me to believe in evolution, feel free. Just don't flatter yourself that you're entitled to any explanation of beliefs on my part. I didn't start this discussion.

Then by all means; don't.

Like I said, far be it from me to begrudge you your personal opinions. I am just obligated to point out they are only that: personal opinions.

I won't even waste time offering you evidence that you will (as previous encounters have borne out) ignore anyways.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I understand the analogy, and I stand by my statement. If you think the existence of a penny proves the existence of a dollar, you're a dumbass

Actually you completely missed the analogy, because you read it literally instead of figuratively as it was meant. If I may rephrase it, he is making a statement such as "you believe a penny represents money but not a dollar". It's essentially saying that this ridiculous made up idea of microevolution is the penny to macroevolution's dollar. They're both different denominations of the exact same system.

And as for someone who tells people they shouldn't just make claims without support, you sure are making quite a few yourself. So let's start here: what part of evolution do you think has not been significantly demonstrated? Phylogenetics? Phenotype? You tell me where the gap in information is, or what information is being misrepresented or used for erroneous conclusions.

That's exactly what I was saying. But Cecille knew that. She isn't here to discuss anything. She basically is here to toss out insults since she is, apparently, some sort of rage-a-haulic who gets off on that kind of behavior.

That being the case, don't expect any sort of logical discussion out of her. It's not that she is incapable of such a conversation, it's just that she is not interested in it.

Did I say that out loud?

That is NOT what you said, so don't sit there and pretend that I am somehow able to read your peabrain and interpret some completely different meaning from your words than they present. And don't try to blame ME because you can't make yourself understood in English. It is, presumably, your mother tongue. If you can't communicate in it, is it really all that surprising that people are less inclined to respect anything you say?

By all means, though, feel free to move on to having a mutual butt-sniffing session with Hick. I recognize how important feeling lofty and superior is in both your lives, and that actual debate with free-thinking people doesn't achieve that goal for either of you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Should this thread at any point move on past "All the smart people believe this, so it must be true", and "if you don't believe it, you're an ignorant religious nut" to a real discussion of anything, someone let me know. I get all the childish gibberish I need from my toddler, and he's a hell of a lot cuter.

 

[geauxtohell]

Actually you completely missed the analogy, because you read it literally instead of figuratively as it was meant. If I may rephrase it, he is making a statement such as "you believe a penny represents money but not a dollar". It's essentially saying that this ridiculous made up idea of microevolution is the penny to macroevolution's dollar. They're both different denominations of the exact same system.

And as for someone who tells people they shouldn't just make claims without support, you sure are making quite a few yourself. So let's start here: what part of evolution do you think has not been significantly demonstrated? Phylogenetics? Phenotype? You tell me where the gap in information is, or what information is being misrepresented or used for erroneous conclusions.

That's exactly what I was saying. But Cecille knew that. She isn't here to discuss anything. She basically is here to toss out insults since she is, apparently, some sort of rage-a-haulic who gets off on that kind of behavior.

That being the case, don't expect any sort of logical discussion out of her. It's not that she is incapable of such a conversation, it's just that she is not interested in it.

Did I say that out loud?

That is NOT what you said, so don't sit there and pretend that I am somehow able to read your peabrain and interpret some completely different meaning from your words than they present. And don't try to blame ME because you can't make yourself understood in English. It is, presumably, your mother tongue. If you can't communicate in it, is it really all that surprising that people are less inclined to respect anything you say?

By all means, though, feel free to move on to having a mutual butt-sniffing session with Hick. I recognize how important feeling lofty and superior is in both your lives, and that actual debate with free-thinking people doesn't achieve that goal for either of you.

That's it. Let the rage fester..........

 

[rdean]

There can be no debate.

There is no such thing as the "occult" or "mysticism" or the "supernatural"

They simply don't exist.