Originally posted by MythLord
Like, the point of evolution is to show off how a primary organism can improve and become greater(which we see evidence of on a daily basis) not how a fish magically turns into a platypus and then into a dog.
Yeah, it's the Creationists who claim that animals just appear into existence without any explanation, except "God," something we don't see.
Whereas we do see gradual changes in organisms. They just ignore it, deny and/or lie about it.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech... we do see gradual changes in organisms. [Creationists] just ignore it, deny and/or lie about it.
Gonna have to back this up, PT.
Listen to what the very Creationist given in your "dogs from rock!" video (Kent Hovind) has to say on this matter, starting at the 6 min 30 sec mark:
(response is roughly 3 minutes or so)
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yes, if you start at about 4:55 in the video, you'll hear it. The guy is a complete moron...
0Pfk8HOBWIw&t
He does understand the absurdity of evolution.
He (like all Christians/believers) does understand evolution. We just don't buy/believe it.
Click on video entitled,
"Dr. Kent Hovind 7-17-17 NO Charlie! "Populations" don't "evolve" either! Wake up!"
and start "exactly" at the 3:20 mark.
Haha... he started with a Christian praise song and prayer and then continued on to an ignorant straw-man rebuttal of evolution.
That is embarrassing.
No, it's not just micro evolution of bird beaks that proves evolution. It's mountains of evidence from multiple disciplines that you Creationists refuse to try to understand.
Originally posted by JesusLovesYou
0Pfk8HOBWIw&t
Hahaha... at 6:50 he has a Freudian slip: "National Pornographic." I wonder what he was doing before he filmed this? 😂
And watching further he continues to misunderstand evolution:
"You'll never get a whale, a tomato, or a hamster to grow on your corn stalk."
😂
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Haha... he started with a Christian praise song and prayer and then continued on to an ignorant straw-man rebuttal of evolution.That is embarrassing.
No, it's not just micro evolution of bird beaks that proves evolution. It's mountains of evidence from multiple disciplines that you Creationists refuse to try to understand.
Bird beaks prove evolution?
😆
You guys are desperate for proof of evolution.
Please excuse me.
😆
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Hahaha... at 6:50 he has a Freudian slip: "National Pornographic." I wonder what he was doing before he filmed this? 😂And watching further he continues to misunderstand evolution:
"You'll never get a whale, a tomato, or a hamster to grow on your corn stalk."
😂
He said that on purpose to belittle the magazine.
Bird beaks prove evolution 😆 not!
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
"You'll never get a whale, a tomato, or a hamster to grow on your corn stalk."😂
Just so you know, JLY, no evolutionist ever claims anything like that.
That's why he is setting up a straw man and knocking it down. It's a dirty, dishonest tactic.
And just so you know, 98% of scientists are Godless followers of evolution..
While 98% of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science say they believe humans evolved over time, only two-thirds (66%) of Americans overall perceive that scientists generally agree about evolution, according to 2014 data from a recent Pew Research Center survey on science and society. Those in the general public who reject evolution are divided on whether there is a scientific consensus on the topic, with 47% saying scientists agree on evolution and 46% saying they do not.
That's disturbing that the general population is so deluded.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Gonna have to back this up, PT.Listen to what the very Creationist given in your "dogs from rock!" video (Kent Hovind) has to say on this matter, starting at the 6 min 30 sec mark:
(response is roughly 3 minutes or so)
When did Kent Hovind earn a biology degree? Was it while he was in prison for being a dishonest crook?
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Just so you know, JLY, no evolutionist ever claims anything like that.That's why he is setting up a straw man and knocking it down. It's a dirty, dishonest tactic.
And just so you know, 98% of scientists are Godless followers of evolution..
That's disturbing that the general population is so deluded.
Yes, it is very disturbing. So disturbing in fact that it is no wonder the Bible states,
Matthew 7:13
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:”
98% of ungodly scientists (and unbelieving public) are headed for everlasting destruction (i.e. everlasting torment in the Lake of Fire)
Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
You see, evolution seems right to them, but the end is the second death (which is the Lake of Fire).
Romans 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
These ungodly scientists (and mocking, scorning public) profess themselves to be wise (with regard to evolution), but they have become fools.
Originally posted by MythLord
Except a lot of scientists are usually prepared to concede and change their entire world-view assuming new empirical evidence arises. Religious blood suckers can be given a ... ton of proof ... and still say "Herr, I dont accept it!"
Anybody who thinks people in science and medicine are vastly different in terms of true open-mindedness probably doesn't know much about the actual history of science OR medicine.
You know something of German as well as English?
Ever seen the following by Max Planck in either language?
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
----------------
History abounds with examples of the above. I've been debating starting a thread concerning one case that struck me as the most profoundly tragic, senseless, and wasteful: that of Ignaz Semmelweis, whose work would have saved the lives of thousands, if only the fields of science and medicine really DID work the way you're suggesting they do ...
----------------
Came across an article that fairly accurately puts a name to what your stance and that of most others seems to be. Briefest of excerpts below; article itself is worth a few moments reading:
Kuhn ... singlehandedly changed the way we think about mankind's most organised attempt to understand the world. Before Kuhn, our view of science was dominated by philosophical ideas about how it ought to develop ("the scientific method"😉, together with a heroic narrative of scientific progress as "the addition of new truths to the stock of old truths, or the increasing approximation of theories to the truth, and, in the odd case, the correction of past errors", as the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy puts it. Before Kuhn, in other words, we had what amounted to the Whig interpretation of scientific history in which past researchers, theorists and experimenters had engaged in a long march, if not towards "truth", then at least towards greater and greater understanding of the natural world ...
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/19/thomas-kuhn-structure-scientific-revolutions
Given I'm going to medical school, yeah I'm aware of the actual history of medicine and, to a degree, science.
Now you mention Ignaz Semmelweis, but that's a poor example because it only plays into my argument more. He was rejected because he lacked empirical data to prove him right at the time, thus he was rejected. Later when proof came up and it was confirmed his theories are true they earned widespread acceptance. Tragic it took them so long to do so, but they eventually did when enough evidence came to the table that he was right.
There will obviously be close-minded scientists and doctors who are hesitant to accept new theories, but at least they eventually will accept them if enough evidence is present. Religious people, however, usually don't give a damn about evidence and go straight to blind faith.
Originally posted by MythLord
Given I'm going to medical school, yeah I'm aware of the actual history of medicine and, to a degree, science.
Beware of spending too much time here, if that's true.
This website can be both life-saver AND life-drainer.
Originally posted by MythLordNow you mention Ignaz Semmelweis, but that's a poor example because it only plays into my argument more.
It's something well-known and something you can relate to, so im thinking it even better now than I did originally.
Originally posted by MythLordThere will obviously be close-minded scientists and doctors who are hesitant to accept new theories, but at least they eventually will accept them if enough evidence is present.
Max Planck wrote what he wrote for a reason, and generally disagrees with you.
So, from everything I can tell, did Thomas Kuhn.
So do I.
Originally posted by MythLord
Semmelweis ... was rejected because he lacked empirical data to prove him right at the time, thus he was rejected. Later when proof came up and it was confirmed his theories are true they earned widespread acceptance. Tragic it took them so long to do so, but they eventually did when enough evidence came to the table that he was right.
It's easy enough to say this, however, there are several things you're overlooking, and after giving the first of these points, I might start that thread after all, just to give these the attention they need.
For now, for consideration of time, I'll just present the first:
1. Semmelweis HAD empirical data. He had observed and recorded death rates in midwife clinics versus his own. He observed and recorded what happened to death rates when chlorine hand washings were implemented. The death rates plummeted. He observed what happened after he left and chlorine hand washings ceased. The death rates went back up to what they had been.
Then Semmelweis introduced chlorine hand washings in his new place of hire.
Again, death rates dramatically plummeted.
This process of observing and testing is practically the definition of empirical, which means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic".
Semmelweis had that.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Beware of spending too much time here, if that's true.
This website can be both life-saver AND life-drainer.
Eh, I can find the free time. Appreciate the concearn, though.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Max Planck wrote what he wrote for a reason, and generally disagrees with you.
So, from everything I can tell, did Thomas Kuhn.
So do I.
And Max can have his opinion and anecdote all he wants, it doesn't change the fact that scientists are far more open-minded to new discoveries assuming proof exists, than extremists of any religion.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
It's easy enough to say this, however, there are several things you're overlooking, and after giving the first of these points, I might start that thread after all, just to give these the attention they need.
For now, for consideration of time, I'll just present the first:1. Semmelweis HAD empirical data. He had observed and recorded death rates in midwife clinics versus his own. He observed and recorded what happened to death rates when chlorine hand washings were implemented. The death rates plummeted. He observed what happened after he left and chlorine hand washings ceased. The death rates went back up to what they had been.
Then Semmelweis introduced chlorine hand washings in his new place of hire.
Again, death rates dramatically plummeted.This process of observing and testing is practically the definition of empirical, which means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic".
Semmelweis had that.
Semmelweis, when he first postulated, didn't have enough empirical data on his side hence why he was primarily rejected. Later on he did several tests which convinced a lot of people and chlorine hand-washing began slowly but surely being implemented. Now, I'll concede that not every scientist did in fact support his theory and denied his proof, but soon after his death even they said "fair enough, it works".
There'll obviously be the close-minded even among doctors, technicians, scientists, etc. But on a general-basis and on average, it's much easier to convince a scientist or atheist of something if you have enough proof, than a Christian, Muslim or any other religious blood-sucker. And I'm openly a Christian(Orthodox) but I definitely don't believe the Bible is 100% true nor do I believe that stuff like evolution and tons of other postulated scientific theories are impossible.
I didn´t read all of it, in fact, I just skimmed through.
But why do you care that Darwin hadn´t a biology degree? (Dunno if that´s correct at all, but I am to lazy to look.) I mean, after all you also say...your things, and you aren´t a prophet.
Also, thousands of people with biology degree agreed with him - his theory stands correct. Heck, if I he would be a stripper, and he could prove Evolution (like Darwin did), then it would also be legit