Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Abiogenesis happened somewhere.

Evolution shows how life started?

NO.
But Creationists always lump that into evolution because it is NOT yet a fact.
Evolution happened no matter how life 'sparked,' and a soon as it did.
Some like to think that the existence of life also 'evolved' from naturally occurring, non-living, complex long chain molecules that have natural tendencies to form into structures that are very much like life.
(I have TWO threads on that on THIS page) (WTF!)

`

Then what did you mean by this
That does not solve NOR help discover how life started in the FIRST place.
Evolution does neither of those. But that is justification for ignoring another theory? lol
As i said, you have an astounding lack of logic. And apparently consistency.

Abiogenesis happened somewhere. We know that.

yep. Even in the bible lol

Hah, true. But best to reject the magical horseshit.

Says the guy who believes a man can become a woman by putting on a wig.

LOL

Says the moron who trusts Putin over America. Just another russian troll, stinking up the joint.

Don't worry, Biden has his #1 girl handling the whole Russian problem:

Aw, poor little cultist can't talk about anything else.

 

[Hollie]

Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true? Link?​

Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.

Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
In this case 160 years and counting.
All good.
Asking how the man who most famously first observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.


See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.

Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.

`
ZERO.
Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.

Well, then, if you can't prove that naturalism is true, how do you know evodelusion is true?

crickets chirping

What part of naturalism is superceded by magic and supernaturalism? If you presume that magic and supernaturalism are accurate descriptions / depictions of contingent reality and then proceed to "prove" magic and supernaturalism are true because you believe magic and supernaturalism are true you can certainly confirm your truths as absolute and unassailable. You just accept being cast as the village ID'iot creationer. Naturalism is undeniable except in the realm of magic and supernaturalism where the ID'iot creationer feels no obligation to support his claims no matter how outlandish.

Why don't the ID'iot creationers supply one, just one, single event in all of human existence that has had demonstrably magical, supernatural causation?

Thanks.

Waiting.

 

[james bond]

Science is one vast, global conspiracy.

Atheist science has become that since the 1850s. Today, most scientists are atheists when it was more believers as scientists before. One could disagree back then and be heard. Now, we'll get lying "consensus" science under atheist science like "climate change."

Religious fear and superstition has given way to knowledge and understanding since the 1850’s. When we compare modern science to the bibles, we're left with the bibles being truly terrible as science texts.

Yes, science took a detour away from fear and superstition in the 1850's. Yes, you lament the advances of science as you apparently lament the loss of the primacy of the church in Medieval Europe. You really do bang away at the “before the 1850’s” in an attempt to disparage science.

Unfortunately for the hyper-religious, it was about that time when the objective sciences, learning and exploration began to blossom.

I can understand that you lament the relative ignorance that defined the time centuries ago but I’m afraid that fear and superstition has been a victim of learning and enlightenment.

Your post shows you have not learned anything discussing things with me. Only one Bible.

The rest is just your opinion that ToE, evolutionary thinking, and cosmology is right since the 1850s. No need to mention the names of these wrong people. Your opinion is based on the atheist religion.

 

[Hollie]

Science is one vast, global conspiracy.

Atheist science has become that since the 1850s. Today, most scientists are atheists when it was more believers as scientists before. One could disagree back then and be heard. Now, we'll get lying "consensus" science under atheist science like "climate change."

Religious fear and superstition has given way to knowledge and understanding since the 1850’s. When we compare modern science to the bibles, we're left with the bibles being truly terrible as science texts.

Yes, science took a detour away from fear and superstition in the 1850's. Yes, you lament the advances of science as you apparently lament the loss of the primacy of the church in Medieval Europe. You really do bang away at the “before the 1850’s” in an attempt to disparage science.

Unfortunately for the hyper-religious, it was about that time when the objective sciences, learning and exploration began to blossom.

I can understand that you lament the relative ignorance that defined the time centuries ago but I’m afraid that fear and superstition has been a victim of learning and enlightenment.

Your post shows you have not learned anything discussing things with me. Only one Bible.

The rest is just your opinion that ToE, evolutionary thinking, and cosmology is right since the 1850s. No need to mention the names of these wrong people. Your opinion is based on the atheist religion.

I get it. Your feelings are hurt.

Otherwise, what would I learn from you beside the dangers of religious indoctrination?

Living in abject fear of angry gods is a prescription for a maladjusted personality but worse is projecting those fears and prejudices on others.

 

[Thoth001]

Once again:

Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true? Link?

Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.

Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
In this case 160 years and counting.
All good.
Asking how the man who most famously first Observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.

See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.


Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.
ZERO.
Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.

`

The trust the general population has in what they perceive to be science is no less than idolatry and it's not even science. At best, it is "consensus science," an oxymoron and not science at all and besides, there is no consensus. It is what they self profess they are as "authoritative sources," a logical fallacy people commonly fall for which is Appeal to Authority.

 

[abu afak]

The trust the general population has in what they perceive to be science is no less than idolatry and it's not even science. At best, it is "consensus science," an oxymoron and not science at all and besides, there is no consensus. It is what they self profess they are as "authoritative sources," a logical fallacy people commonly fall for which is Appeal to Authority.

Your claims are ALL bogus.

1. You have/post ZERO Barometer of the general population. (as if THEY are the authority or the truth is a poll.)
If you mean MAGA Koch-heads, that's a whole nuther bag of tricks

2. It doesn't matter whether Evolution is consensus or not. (it of course is since the monkey trials)
It's the Basis of Modern biology.
Only politics and religion ENCROACH on the "public" (Deluded believers) ability to absorb settled facts.

3. And lastly, you IDIOT, the 'appeal to authority fallacy' is NOT a fallacy if the expert IS a legitimate authority on the topic!
IOW/Of course, if I cite albert Einstein on Relativity, that's an excellent source/citation.
If I cite Trump (or Kobe Bryant), THAT is when appeal to (an/any) authority becomes a Fallacy.
You MORON.

ie,

".. It's important to note that this fallacy should NOT be used to dismiss the claims of Experts, or Scientific Consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.​

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

`

 

[Thoth001]

The trust the general population has in what they perceive to be science is no less than idolatry and it's not even science. At best, it is "consensus science," an oxymoron and not science at all and besides, there is no consensus. It is what they self profess they are as "authoritative sources," a logical fallacy people commonly fall for which is Appeal to Authority.

Your claims are ALL bogus.

1. You have/post ZERO Barometer of the general population. (as if THEY are the authority or the truth is a poll.)
If you mean MAGA Koch-heads, that's a whole nuther bag of tricks

2. It doesn't matter whether Evolution is consensus or not. (it of course is since the monkey trials)
It's the Basis of Modern biology.
Only politics and religion ENCROACH on the "public" (Deluded believers) ability to absorb settled facts.

3. And lastly, you IDIOT, the 'appeal to authority fallacy' is NOT a fallacy if the expert IS a legitimate authority on the topic!
IOW/Of course, if I cite albert Einstein on Relativity, that's an excellent source/citation.
If I cite Trump (or Kobe Bryant), THAT is when appeal to (an/any) authority becomes a Fallacy.
You MORON.

ie,

".. It's important to note that this fallacy should NOT be used to dismiss the claims of Experts, or Scientific Consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.​

Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

`

I will repeat it for you since you can't read very well.

The trust the general population has in what they perceive to be science is no less than idolatry and it's not even science. At best, it is "consensus science," an oxymoron and not science at all and besides, there is no consensus. It is what they self profess they are as "authoritative sources," a logical fallacy people commonly fall for which is Appeal to Authority.

Furthermore, belief in authority inevitably leads to allegiance to authority, which usually triggers the reflex of absolute spiritual obedience and paralysis of the mind.

 

[abu afak]

.....The trust the general population has in what they perceive to be science is no less than idolatry and it's not even science. At best, it is "consensus science," an oxymoron and not science at all and besides, there is no consensus. It is what they self profess they are as "authoritative sources," a logical fallacy people commonly fall for which is Appeal to Authority.

Furthermore, belief in authority inevitably leads to allegiance to authority, which usually triggers the reflex of absolute spiritual obedience and paralysis of the mind.

You provided NO evidence/Numbers of what the "general population" feels on any given scientific subject.
Everything that follows is therefore baseless.
You're a dishonest little idiot with a 12 IQ.
Not that the "general population's" opinion constitute truth. Truth is not a poll.
If 80% of people disagreed with Evo, it would STILL be true.
I debate truth, not polls.

Wanna try and post more goofy/fallacious posts on fallacies junior?

`

 

[Thoth001]

.....The trust the general population has in what they perceive to be science is no less than idolatry and it's not even science. At best, it is "consensus science," an oxymoron and not science at all and besides, there is no consensus. It is what they self profess they are as "authoritative sources," a logical fallacy people commonly fall for which is Appeal to Authority.

Furthermore, belief in authority inevitably leads to allegiance to authority, which usually triggers the reflex of absolute spiritual obedience and paralysis of the mind.

You provided NO evidence/Numbers of what the "general population" feels on any given scientific subject.
Everything that follows is therefore baseless.
You're a dishonest little idiot with a 12 IQ.

Wanna try and post more goofy/fallacious posts on fallacies junior?

`

It goes right over your head and through the woods. And you are saying I am the one with the low IQ..The only thing you provide is bullying tactics. That don't make you look very smart at all. Because of that you must belittle other people because you think you make yourself look smarter.

 

[Thoth001]

So, NO answer to the meat:
First, you're full of **** with the nebulous "general populations opinion.'
Second, their opinion would not be evidence of truth
In fact, YOU are making an "an appeal to authority/non legitimate authority/poll" FALLACY.
LOFL
The irony!

`

I only realize I am literally talking to an apeman. Afterall, you are what you believe aren't you?

 

[abu afak]

So, Now TWO embarrassed posts in a row
Having no answer being debunked on all his Idiotic claims.
Namely:
First, you're full of **** with the nebulous "general populations opinion.'
Second, their opinion would not be evidence of truth
In fact, YOU are making an "an appeal to authority/non legitimate authority/poll" FALLACY.
LOFL
The irony!

`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The trust the general population has in what they perceive to be science is no less than idolatry and it's not even science.

No, that's idiotic. People trust science because of the mountains of evidence of its great successes. That's why you are trolling on a quantum mechanical device instead of by carrier pigeon, ya dummy.

 

[Thoth001]

The trust the general population has in what they perceive to be science is no less than idolatry and it's not even science.

No, that's idiotic. People trust science because of the mountains of evidence of its great successes. That's why you are trolling on a quantum mechanical device instead of by carrier pigeon, ya dummy.

The problem is much of science has become political and most of science is now funded by government grants and corporations. And if you trust government and big corporations then you have a lot to learn.

Not a fan of Wiki but I know most of the sheeple are so here you go:

Funding of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The problem is much of science has become political and most of science is now funded by government grants and corporations

Total nonsense. Another madeup, smoke and mirrors talking point designed to waste other people's time and to distract from the real reasons for your irrational doubt and denial.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reverend Ringtone either showed he's Stupid, or as Daily, presenting False challenges to the board.

Once again:

Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true? Link?​

Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.

Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
In this case 160 years and counting.
All good.
Asking how the man who most famously first observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.


See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.

Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.

`
ZERO.
Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.

Lol

You can't even assemble the first cell with your Failed Theory!

Take the 2,000 proteins necessary to operate a single cell, I'll give you that well skip over the processes of assembling the molecules to make 2,000 separate proteins- and put them in a can of Campbell's Primordial Soup and shake it all up in a Home Depot paint mixer until cells start forming - OK?

 

[Hollie]

Reverend Ringtone either showed he's Stupid, or as Daily, presenting False challenges to the board.

Once again:

Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true? Link?​

Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.

Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
In this case 160 years and counting.
All good.
Asking how the man who most famously first observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.


See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.

Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.

`
ZERO.
Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.

Lol

You can't even assemble the first cell with your Failed Theory!

Take the 2,000 proteins necessary to operate a single cell, I'll give you that well skip over the processes of assembling the molecules to make 2,000 separate proteins- and put them in a can of Campbell's Primordial Soup and shake it all up in a Home Depot paint mixer until cells start forming - OK?

Like many religious extremists, you presume those atheist evilutionist scientists not yet producing life means it will never happen. What the religious extremists fail to understand is that nature has had billions of years of trial and error.

The continuing problem faced by the supernatural creationists is that their religious literature ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously over the course of billions of years. Thus, we know with certainty that abiogenesis occurred, because, obviously life exists.

The real question becomes why would the gods make biological life so complex when supernatural creation has no need for such complexity?

Have the gods played a cruel joke on supernatural creationers?

On the other hand, the supernatural creationers can’t assemble even one of their gods with their failed appeals to magic and supernaturalism. The supernatural creationers can’t even even begin to assemble the hierarchy of supernatural creator gods assembled by the super-supernatural creator gods.

If you’re going to make a case for old men in long, flowing beards wearing nightgowns while living in the clouds, you haven’t made that case yet.

The Origins of Life

A mineralogist believes he's discovered how life's early building blocks connected four billion years ago

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[abu afak]

Lol
You can't even assemble the first cell with your Failed Theory!

Take the 2,000 proteins necessary to operate a single cell, I'll give you that well skip over the processes of assembling the molecules to make 2,000 separate proteins- and put them in a can of Campbell's Primordial Soup and shake it all up in a Home Depot paint mixer until cells start forming - OK?

And you can't even show any Evidence of a more unlikely 'god' being poofed into existence and THEN doing same.
(then of course there's the issue of YOUR 'god' others of which/Witch you would not accept.)
I only believe in one Less god than you.
You don't believe thousands either, but you grew up Indoctrinated with one.
A Geo-cultural accident of birth... like all religions/gods.

If design was 'Intelligent' instead of trial and error mess it is, it would not have so many 'moving parts.'
Not only cells, but humans could be 'solid state' or only have a dozen 'moving parts.'
But no.
It's a mutated mess (many failed). All TRACEABLE to a single cell and mutated/expanded over time/billion years.
Nothing like 'genesis.' ZERO.

`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Reverend Ringtone either showed he's Stupid, or as Daily, presenting False challenges to the board.

Once again:

Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true? Link?​

Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.

Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
In this case 160 years and counting.
All good.
Asking how the man who most famously first observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.


See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.

Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.

`
ZERO.
Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.

Lol

You can't even assemble the first cell with your Failed Theory!

Take the 2,000 proteins necessary to operate a single cell, I'll give you that well skip over the processes of assembling the molecules to make 2,000 separate proteins- and put them in a can of Campbell's Primordial Soup and shake it all up in a Home Depot paint mixer until cells start forming - OK?

its as though you have never even bothered to try to think about how evolution works. Small increments. Functions and proteins added. Little by little. Over 10s and 100s of million of years. You sound very stupid to anyone who knows anything about evolution.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reverend Ringtone either showed he's Stupid, or as Daily, presenting False challenges to the board.

Once again:

Just how did Darwin prove that naturalism is true? Link?​

Darwin didn't "prove" naturalism is true, it was his observation and has since been confirmed by every new relevant science and an infinite amount of fossil, etc, evidence.

Science doesn't deal in "Proof" you stupid Dishonest/False challenge POS..
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
In this case 160 years and counting.
All good.
Asking how the man who most famously first observed it "Proved" it is FALLACIOUS and DISHONEST.. like you.


See my above last two posts of Evidence demonstrating Evolution is true.
UNREFUTED, UNTOUCHED.

Reverend Ringtone, OTOH, has shown ZERO hard evidence for god/s.

`
ZERO.
Just semantic BS/philosophical speculation.

Lol

You can't even assemble the first cell with your Failed Theory!

Take the 2,000 proteins necessary to operate a single cell, I'll give you that well skip over the processes of assembling the molecules to make 2,000 separate proteins- and put them in a can of Campbell's Primordial Soup and shake it all up in a Home Depot paint mixer until cells start forming - OK?

its as though you have never even bothered to try to think about how evolution works. Small increments. Functions and proteins added. Little by little. Over 10s and 100s of million of years. You sound very stupid to anyone who knows anything about evolution.

You don't understand how a cell functions, you haven't the first clue at the complexity of it. You're stuck on some absurd Lego block version of cell structure. You think that the proteins ultimately involved in locomotion or digestion were functioning "normally" and just waiting to be jostled into the exact perfect place- again, like Lego blocks.

 

[abu afak]

You don't understand how a cell functions, you haven't the first clue at the complexity of it. You're stuck on some absurd Lego block version of cell structure. You think that the proteins ultimately involved in locomotion or digestion were functioning "normally" and just waiting to be jostled into the exact perfect place- again, like Lego blocks.

Complexity is NOT an argument for god.
Complexity and mutations, Birth defects, messy reproduction, ambiguous sexual organs, etc, is all a MESS.
There's nothing Intelligent/immaculate about the way life is or has been.
Which is why you FAILED to answer me.

`