who honestly doesn't believe in evolution?

Do you believe evolution is real?

  • Yes

    Votes: 42 84.0%
  • No

    Votes: 8 16.0%

  • Total voters
    50
It's not that I expect any better from someone who thinks "all the smart people believe in evolution" is an argument

When did Hick say that?

I have been called a hick by him because I didn't believe in evlutionism. And I am sure that was not an isolated case.

He also refuses to answer the question of "which scientists are smart/correct, the ones that he believes in or the ones that he doesn't?"
 
This is Hick, just a couple of posts later:

Once again you return to "Darwinian evolution" when several people have pointed out several times that the infant understanding of the topic in the early 1800s is not equivalent to evolution.

I found that particularly funny, since I had been quoting a science writer from Nature magazine just recently, but at any rate, it still sounds like "We don't believe Darwin anymore".
You quoted a writer. Who works with Nature. The quote was not published in Nature. It does not represent scientific theory, nor any form of research. It is an opinion, which, if anything, supports the claim that there is much more to evolution besides bones: a concept you have yet to acknowledge. Meanwhile, you continue to overlook that thing called GENETICS, an integral and defining part of evolution.


Cecile said:
Rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "Evolution today is different, and you just don't understand!" over and over, why don't you try actually READING my definition of Darwinian evolution, and telling me what it is that you believe that's so radically different from what I said?
Because no one cares about your made up definition of what you think Darwinian evolution is, especially since it is not evolution. I have explained several times what evolution is, and why your idea is incorrect, including but not limited to the entire lack of genetics which your fabricated definition avoids.

Cecile said:
I never said I expected to find all the intermediates. What I said was that the impossibility of doing so is one reason the fossil record cannot, in principle, prove evolution.
But genetics can. Except you keep pretending it doesn't exist for some reason. Hey maybe you should start a nice long list of things you don't think can prove evolution. Here let me help you:
  • staring at the ceiling
  • examining dirt structures
  • looking at footprints of animals
  • clapping and thinking happy thoughts
  • examining the contents of vomit from various animals
  • copying and pasting out of context quotes from the internet
  • examining ideas that are known to be outdated

Hey don't let me stop your fun of pointing out things that don't provide a full picture to this well studied and supported conclusion. Keep going! Maybe next week you can give us a list of things that don't prove gravity. But when you grow tired of that exercise and want to discuss the things that DO support evolution, you let me know.

Cecile said:
This idea that species exist now that didn't then, therefore that proves they evolved from some totally other species is rather a large leap of . . . well, I can't call it a leap of logic, because it's not logic. I guess I'll have to call it what it really is: a leap of faith. Which belongs in the realm of religion, not science.
So you're saying that when you don't understand a topic, and you only analyze outdated ideas in the topic which today do not provide the full support of the topic, you don't see the logic. Wow that's almost expected....

Cecile said:
Furthermore, no one has ever argued that species change within themselves. This is, as I said, a disingenuous dodge to try to pretend that the debate is over something completely non-controversial and undisputed. Change within a species does not prove change from one species to another, no matter how much evolutionists have tired of trying to prove that it does, and decided to simply assert that the issue is "obvious, and settled, and you're stupid!"
Did you miss that video that I showed you of ape chromosome fusion in the human genome? Oh right that's genetics and you pretend it doesn't exist.


So let's recap your line of thinking: You only believe things that are over 100 years old, are known to be outdated, and don't fully support the idea. You reject, ignore, or avoid all of modern science, including genetics and radiometric dating. Anything you post was not even said/done in this century. Based on this ignorance, you therefore conclude your uneducated model of the concept can't possibly be correct.

So which links are missing again? You still haven't answered this.
 
It's not that I expect any better from someone who thinks "all the smart people believe in evolution" is an argument

When did Hick say that?

I have been called a hick by him because I didn't believe in evlutionism. And I am sure that was not an isolated case.

He also refuses to answer the question of "which scientists are smart/correct, the ones that he believes in or the ones that he doesn't?"

Probably because it's a retarded question.

At any rate, I am not aware of any scientists who don't believe in evolution. Even Behe and the ID clowns believe in the mechanism of evolution.
 
This is one great country! We have Internet everywhere..even in caves and under rocks. Eventually the fundis will transform their dogma to account for science.. The evolution is not to be denied.
 
When did Hick say that?

I have been called a hick by him because I didn't believe in evlutionism. And I am sure that was not an isolated case.

He also refuses to answer the question of "which scientists are smart/correct, the ones that he believes in or the ones that he doesn't?"

Probably because it's a retarded question.

At any rate, I am not aware of any scientists who don't believe in evolution. Even Behe and the ID clowns believe in the mechanism of evolution.

I'm sure you aren't aware of any scientists who don't believe in evolution, in exactly the same way that most liberals don't know of anyone who votes Republican.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

I can only assume that your last paragraph is another disingenuous attempt to claim mundane and utterly non-controversial facts as the "evolution" actually in dispute, or "proof" thereof.
 
I'm sure you aren't aware of any scientists who don't believe in evolution, in exactly the same way that most liberals don't know of anyone who votes Republican.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

I can only assume that your last paragraph is another disingenuous attempt to claim mundane and utterly non-controversial facts as the "evolution" actually in dispute, or "proof" thereof.

As I said:

Even Behe and the ID clowns believe in the mechanism of evolution.

You really are clueless on this subject aren't you? Thanks for the link though, now I know why you are so insistent on the use of the phrase "Darwinian theory".

You are on par with the Discovery Institute in terms of dishonesty when it comes to discussing this matter.
 
I'm sure you aren't aware of any scientists who don't believe in evolution, in exactly the same way that most liberals don't know of anyone who votes Republican.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

I can only assume that your last paragraph is another disingenuous attempt to claim mundane and utterly non-controversial facts as the "evolution" actually in dispute, or "proof" thereof.

So your "proof" is an unverified list from people around the world, the majority of which have zero biology education, some of which are DECEASED, some of which have been asked to be removed from the list? Oh but look, a research assistant in chemistry from the Ukraine doesn't believe in evolution! Strong supporting evidence!

The reason we haven't met people who deny evolution is because that list, combined with the estimated others who agree with it, comprise 0.01% of scientists, without exaggeration. Over 99.9% of scientists, including American biologists), think intelligent design is utter crap. So please, don't compare this to being a republican. It is not some gigantic minority that comes into power from time to time. They are a laughable rare exception to logic, generally fueled by religious beliefs and NOT scientific reasoning.

Perhaps you should stop using the word "disingenuous". You're either being hypocritical, or you don't actually know what it means.

But despite having the overwhelming majority agreeing with us, this debate is about factual evidence, which we have provided. You, however, continue to provide.... NOTHING. Where is your evidence? Where is your missing link? What can you show to support ANYTHING of what you say? Your points are so feeble and uneducated that you can't even address my posts.
 
So your "proof" is an unverified list from people around the world, the majority of which have zero biology education, some of which are DECEASED, some of which have been asked to be removed from the list? Oh but look, a research assistant in chemistry from the Ukraine doesn't believe in evolution! Strong supporting evidence!

The reason we haven't met people who deny evolution is because that list, combined with the estimated others who agree with it, comprise 0.01% of scientists, without exaggeration. Over 99.9% of scientists, including American biologists), think intelligent design is utter crap. So please, don't compare this to being a republican. It is not some gigantic minority that comes into power from time to time. They are a laughable rare exception to logic, generally fueled by religious beliefs and NOT scientific reasoning.

Perhaps you should stop using the word "disingenuous". You're either being hypocritical, or you don't actually know what it means.

But despite having the overwhelming majority agreeing with us, this debate is about factual evidence, which we have provided. You, however, continue to provide.... NOTHING. Where is your evidence? Where is your missing link? What can you show to support ANYTHING of what you say? Your points are so feeble and uneducated that you can't even address my posts.

Oh yeah, the DI list has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese.

CA111.1: Scientists skeptical of evolution?

I am sure Cecille is sharp enough to know it. Like I said, you can't expect any form of honesty when discussing this issue with these people.

As you pointed out, their objections are grounded in religious perspective and are not scientific.
 
I have been called a hick by him because I didn't believe in evlutionism. And I am sure that was not an isolated case.

He also refuses to answer the question of "which scientists are smart/correct, the ones that he believes in or the ones that he doesn't?"

Probably because it's a retarded question.

At any rate, I am not aware of any scientists who don't believe in evolution. Even Behe and the ID clowns believe in the mechanism of evolution.

I'm sure you aren't aware of any scientists who don't believe in evolution, in exactly the same way that most liberals don't know of anyone who votes Republican.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

I can only assume that your last paragraph is another disingenuous attempt to claim mundane and utterly non-controversial facts as the "evolution" actually in dispute, or "proof" thereof.

[youtube]Ty1Bo6GmPqM[/youtube]
 
Probably because it's a retarded question.

At any rate, I am not aware of any scientists who don't believe in evolution. Even Behe and the ID clowns believe in the mechanism of evolution.

I'm sure you aren't aware of any scientists who don't believe in evolution, in exactly the same way that most liberals don't know of anyone who votes Republican.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

I can only assume that your last paragraph is another disingenuous attempt to claim mundane and utterly non-controversial facts as the "evolution" actually in dispute, or "proof" thereof.

[youtube]Ty1Bo6GmPqM[/youtube]

Don Exodus has made a ton of good videos on evolution.

You could literally direct any skeptic that honestly has an open mind on this matter to his site and they would have a hard time doubting evolution after that.
 
It'd be wise not to trust anything that comes out of the DI's mouth. They have this memo of theirs called the wedge document

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

In it they admit they want to "reverse stifling dominance of the materialist worldview and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"

and that one of their major goals is "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Doesn't sound like anything that would come from a scientific organization.
 
Last edited:
It'd be wise not to trust anything that comes out of the DI's mouth. They have this memo of theirs called the wedge document

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

In it they admit they want to "reverse stifling dominance of the materialist worldview and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"

Doesn't sound like anything that would come from a scientific organization.

It's not a scientific organization in the least. It's really PAC. They dovote little, if any, money to bench science and research and most of their money goes towards advertisement and lobbying.

It's yet another reason they were excoriated at the Dover trial. They are a dishonest group of hacks. Anyone that parrots their talking points should also have their honesty called into question.
 
So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.

I find it really hard to grasp that some people don't believe in evolution, which is proven, and I think many of those who question "evolution" are actually questioning abiogenesis:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, I believe in evolution, species shed or adapt….I do however have issue with motor functions & sight, as to how from whole clothe that came about….maybe it’s the Monolith theory? ( hat tip to A C Clarke)..then theres who built/created the Monolith and all that...
 
So who doesn't believe in evolution? Not abiogenesis, but evolution.

I find it really hard to grasp that some people don't believe in evolution, which is proven, and I think many of those who question "evolution" are actually questioning abiogenesis:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, I believe in evolution, species shed or adapt….I do however have issue with motor functions & sight, as to how from whole clothe that came about….maybe it’s the Monolith theory? ( hat tip to A C Clarke)..then theres who built/created the Monolith and all that...

2001 is basically intelligent design. Of course, Clarke never claimed it was anything more than fiction.

Clarke was an accomplished scientist in his own right.
 
So your "proof" is an unverified list from people around the world, the majority of which have zero biology education, some of which are DECEASED, some of which have been asked to be removed from the list? Oh but look, a research assistant in chemistry from the Ukraine doesn't believe in evolution! Strong supporting evidence!

The reason we haven't met people who deny evolution is because that list, combined with the estimated others who agree with it, comprise 0.01% of scientists, without exaggeration. Over 99.9% of scientists, including American biologists), think intelligent design is utter crap. So please, don't compare this to being a republican. It is not some gigantic minority that comes into power from time to time. They are a laughable rare exception to logic, generally fueled by religious beliefs and NOT scientific reasoning.

Perhaps you should stop using the word "disingenuous". You're either being hypocritical, or you don't actually know what it means.

But despite having the overwhelming majority agreeing with us, this debate is about factual evidence, which we have provided. You, however, continue to provide.... NOTHING. Where is your evidence? Where is your missing link? What can you show to support ANYTHING of what you say? Your points are so feeble and uneducated that you can't even address my posts.

Oh yeah, the DI list has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese.

CA111.1: Scientists skeptical of evolution?

I am sure Cecille is sharp enough to know it. Like I said, you can't expect any form of honesty when discussing this issue with these people.

As you pointed out, their objections are grounded in religious perspective and are not scientific.

Ooh. A website that does the same thing your posts does: tries to claim everything and anything as supporting evolution by lies and disingenuity.

And please, in the future, when you're talking to people who still think your posts are honest and intelligent enough to be worth reading and responding to - people who aren't me, in other words - do NOT ever again try to spread your dishonest net of "claim everything" to me. I'm sure you think you're handing out a compliment by trying to tell everyone that I secretly know how right and brilliant you are and am just lying about you for my own nefarious purposes. The truth is, though, that I think you're a halfwit. Not because you believe in evolution, but because you don't even know WHY you believe in it, yet your reaction to any questioning of your dogma approaches frothing zealotry.

I started this thread by saying that I don't believe in evolution. I don't actively or zealously disbelieve in it, either. I'm not married to the proposition that it's untrue. I just don't feel it's been proven sufficiently to command my belief. You and your lover, Hick, have since reacted to that statement as if I proposed burning all science textbooks and putting evolutionists to the torch, and neither one of you has come up with an argument that amounted to any more than adolescent peer pressure. "You should believe evolution because that's what smart people do. If you don't accept it as settled fact, you're an anachronistic religious nut."

Your boyfriend has long since put himself out of the running of being even vaguely worth the effort of reading, although I note with amusement that he's still running his gums in long-winded, bloviating insult rants to himself. You have now reached the same boredom factor as him, so feel free to turn all your attentions to more verbal mutual masturbation like this post. I have no intention of interrupting your lovefest any more, and would be appreciative if you wouldn't interrupt any conversation I might manage to find with someone who actually has something to say, should such a person show up.
 
So your "proof" is an unverified list from people around the world, the majority of which have zero biology education, some of which are DECEASED, some of which have been asked to be removed from the list? Oh but look, a research assistant in chemistry from the Ukraine doesn't believe in evolution! Strong supporting evidence!

The reason we haven't met people who deny evolution is because that list, combined with the estimated others who agree with it, comprise 0.01% of scientists, without exaggeration. Over 99.9% of scientists, including American biologists), think intelligent design is utter crap. So please, don't compare this to being a republican. It is not some gigantic minority that comes into power from time to time. They are a laughable rare exception to logic, generally fueled by religious beliefs and NOT scientific reasoning.

Perhaps you should stop using the word "disingenuous". You're either being hypocritical, or you don't actually know what it means.

But despite having the overwhelming majority agreeing with us, this debate is about factual evidence, which we have provided. You, however, continue to provide.... NOTHING. Where is your evidence? Where is your missing link? What can you show to support ANYTHING of what you say? Your points are so feeble and uneducated that you can't even address my posts.

Oh yeah, the DI list has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese.

CA111.1: Scientists skeptical of evolution?

I am sure Cecille is sharp enough to know it. Like I said, you can't expect any form of honesty when discussing this issue with these people.

As you pointed out, their objections are grounded in religious perspective and are not scientific.

Ooh. A website that does the same thing your posts does: tries to claim everything and anything as supporting evolution by lies and disingenuity.

And please, in the future, when you're talking to people who still think your posts are honest and intelligent enough to be worth reading and responding to - people who aren't me, in other words - do NOT ever again try to spread your dishonest net of "claim everything" to me. I'm sure you think you're handing out a compliment by trying to tell everyone that I secretly know how right and brilliant you are and am just lying about you for my own nefarious purposes. The truth is, though, that I think you're a halfwit. Not because you believe in evolution, but because you don't even know WHY you believe in it, yet your reaction to any questioning of your dogma approaches frothing zealotry.

I started this thread by saying that I don't believe in evolution. I don't actively or zealously disbelieve in it, either. I'm not married to the proposition that it's untrue. I just don't feel it's been proven sufficiently to command my belief. You and your lover, Hick, have since reacted to that statement as if I proposed burning all science textbooks and putting evolutionists to the torch, and neither one of you has come up with an argument that amounted to any more than adolescent peer pressure. "You should believe evolution because that's what smart people do. If you don't accept it as settled fact, you're an anachronistic religious nut."

Your boyfriend has long since put himself out of the running of being even vaguely worth the effort of reading, although I note with amusement that he's still running his gums in long-winded, bloviating insult rants to himself. You have now reached the same boredom factor as him, so feel free to turn all your attentions to more verbal mutual masturbation like this post. I have no intention of interrupting your lovefest any more, and would be appreciative if you wouldn't interrupt any conversation I might manage to find with someone who actually has something to say, should such a person show up.

So basically you can't handle it and you're running away again. Ok let me know when you actually plan to stick with that.

And I'm still waiting on you telling me when they actually said "You should believe evolution because that's what smart people do."
 
Last edited:
Ah I see. The tactic of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting loudly. I've given you video, text, and my own explanation regarding the proof of evolution. You have ignored all of it, while claiming we only say "it's true because people believe it". No. It's true because of the evidence you refuse to acknowledge exists. In fact you're the only one who has provided as their sole evidence a list of people who agree with you.

I know exactly why I believe in evolution: the reproducible evidence. And I can tell you for a fact that I know GTH has a firm understanding as well, seeing as it's somewhat difficult to obtain an MD without understanding how things work. But sure, continue deluding yourself into thinking the two highly educated and knowledgeable individuals you are speaking to are somehow just parroting off nonsense.

Now that you've backed yourself into an intellectual sinkhole, your only option is to run for the door and hope no one notices the crap still actively spewing from your mouth. Run along now, little girl.
 
The truth is, though, that I think you're a halfwit. Not because you believe in evolution, but because you don't even know WHY you believe in it, yet your reaction to any questioning of your dogma approaches frothing zealotry.

If you didn't make a habit of being intentionally abrasive and rude, you wouldn't be viewed as a total asshole and perhaps people would entertain the notion of intelligent conversation with you.

Ironic that you whine about me presuming to speak for you and yet you do the same for me. FWIW, I accept evolution because I have formally studied it in an academic setting. I did so with an open mind and without sticking my finger in my ears as you are.

I started this thread by saying that I don't believe in evolution. I don't actively or zealously disbelieve in it, either. I'm not married to the proposition that it's untrue. I just don't feel it's been proven sufficiently to command my belief. You and your lover, Hick, have since reacted to that statement as if I proposed burning all science textbooks and putting evolutionists to the torch, and neither one of you has come up with an argument that amounted to any more than adolescent peer pressure. "You should believe evolution because that's what smart people do. If you don't accept it as settled fact, you're an anachronistic religious nut."


As I said before, I could care less if you don't want to believe evolution. However, your claim that your stance comes from any sort of educated or honest place is absurd. You merely choose to ignore the evidence. That's your right, but don't think you are so crafty that it's not patently obvious.

Your boyfriend has long since put himself out of the running of being even vaguely worth the effort of reading, although I note with amusement that he's still running his gums in long-winded, bloviating insult rants to himself. You have now reached the same boredom factor as him, so feel free to turn all your attentions to more verbal mutual masturbation like this post. I have no intention of interrupting your lovefest any more, and would be appreciative if you wouldn't interrupt any conversation I might manage to find with someone who actually has something to say, should such a person show up.

Most likely because other posters believe you are capable of discussing this, or any issue, reasonably if they just try hard enough. I know otherwise. I see you as an angry person that basically jumps on threads to stoke up your anger and lash out at other posters. Why you choose to do so I can only guess.

Either way, I could care less. I can assure you that your opinion of me is just as irrelevant in my eyes as is my opinion of you in your eyes.

It is also only too predictable that, now that you have gotten your fix, you choose to run away.
 
Back
Top Bottom