I'm having problems believing in evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-12-2016, 08:49 PM
RE: I'm having problems believing in evolution
(11-12-2016 08:01 PM)Ask21771 Wrote:  EITHER ANSWER MY QUESTION OR STAY OFF MY FUCKIN THREAD

Why do they always do this? They should know that it only encourages us.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
11-12-2016, 09:19 PM (This post was last modified: 12-12-2016 03:48 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: I'm having problems believing in evolution
(11-12-2016 07:39 PM)Ask21771 Wrote:  Then explain this https://www.icr.org/article/5501

The ICR is a source which flatly announces its bias, you can check their About Us section in which they clearly show themselves to be religiously based dogmatists.

Regardless of that fact, let's look through their article; first thing to note is the sources for their article, which are at best describable in Hapsburgian degrees of incestuousness.

First claim:
Quote:... including a spider web trapped in an amber deposit that was located in a rock layer supposedly 100 million years older than the time spiders were assumed to have evolved.

This is false; the paper the article is based on, yet curiously does not cite, acknowledges that it is the earliest specimen of preserved web of this kind known, stating:
Quote:Hitherto, the world's oldest fossilized spider silk web in amber has come from c. 130 Ma old Lebanese amber, in which are seen droplets from 7 to 29 m in diameter, plausibly attributed to araneoid secretions (Zschokke 2003, 2004). They have also been found in amber of probable Valanginian age from the Isle of Wight (Jarzembowski et al. 2008) and at Bexhill (Brasier & Yenney, unpubl. data). Much older is a small strand of putative silk seen attached to a fossil spider in the Middle Devonian rocks of Gilboa, New York (Selden et al. 2008) though webs older than the current example from Hastings are as yet unknown.
(Bolding mine)

The cited work demonstrated preserved spider specimens with silk long prior to this discovery; spiders were known to exist long before the ICR article claims, and were known to make webs, and nobody but Mr. Brian Thomas (the article writer) is claiming otherwise. What is important about this discovery is that it is the oldest preserved webbing proper to date.
The paper incedentally if you should like to read it is titled "First report of amber with spider webs and microbial inclusions from the earliest Cretaceous (c. 140 Ma) of Hastings, Sussex"

Second Claim:
Quote:Another example is the discovery in Japan of a fossilized tooth of what was essentially a small T. rex. Such a find would not normally make headlines, but this tooth was located in a rock layer that predated the assigned T. rex "age" by 60 million years.

Again the writed neglected to actually link the source, but rather linked himself discussing the discovery. This guy seriously shows bad form in citation work.

Anyway, that is also wrong; in his article that he cites, he claims:
Quote:The Lower Cretaceous rocks that Raptorex was found in have been assigned a date of approximately 125 million years. But that would mean that this mini-T. rex was unaware that its body plan was not supposed to have evolved for another 60 million years.

This is patently absurd; as again the paper discussing the find acknowledges that the most famous Tyrannosaurs were believed to have evolved from smaller species between the Late Cretaceous and Early Jurassic. Raptorex kriegsteini conforms to all expectations of Tyrannosaurid evolution.
Paper: Tyrannosaurid Skeletal Design First Evolved at Small Body Size

Third claim: man-made artefacts have been found earlier than expected.

Yes, they have. But tools associated with anatomically modern humans have yet to appear prior to humans being there as well, and neither have been found to predate the evolution of humans or their estimated arrival time by migration as known from genetic and fossil evidence.

Fourth claim: amber predating angiosperms.
If this guy could stop citing himself for one minute... He claims that the revision of understanding based on new data that came from this discovery is simply due to the presumption of evolution. There really isn't anything to argue here; he presumes creation so he can't really be the one casting stones given that in his articles he has went about reinterpreting data in the presumption of creationism.

Fifth: amber preserved mammal fur shows structure is largely unchanged as though they were created
Quote:It is as if mammals were specially created, complete with hair from the beginning.

The smacks of my previous point that people in houses made of precariously stacked bibles can't throw stones.Putting that aside; mammaliaformes existed prior to that preserved fur as is known and accepted and the fur has largely not changed because frankly evolutionarily when a system ain't broke, it doesn't often get tended too due the the nature of selective pressures on populations. Also the presumption of creation raises the question of 'explain why whales lack fur, as they are mammals?'

Finally: Pelican beak has remained largely unchanged since they developed. That's extremely common and predicted in evolutionary theory.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Free Thought's post
11-12-2016, 09:51 PM
RE: I'm having problems believing in evolution
(11-12-2016 08:01 PM)Ask21771 Wrote:  EITHER ANSWER MY QUESTION OR STAY OFF MY FUCKIN THREAD

Ah there it is. The Christee troll finally outs himself fully.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
11-12-2016, 09:56 PM
RE: I'm having problems believing in evolution
Thanks FT. I don't know why you give this guy anything but a neener, I'm sure you could just link to the hundreds of posts elsewhere in the forum that have already dealt with this, but you and others are going the distance and I applaud that.

While Mr. Ask isn't going to be looking into any actual evidence, I'm sure that other guests will and that does make your replies worth making.

I salute you, and apologize for the stupid crap that I will invariably be posting if I revisit this thread.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
11-12-2016, 09:59 PM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2016 10:02 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: I'm having problems believing in evolution
FT, that is a great response...but not one I think he deserved until/unless he demonstrated the basic level of honesty that would let it seen you just did anything but waste your time.

I will be shocked if Ask reads more than two words of that.

I'm starting to suspect the Liars For Jesus™ clubs are sending people our way. Angry

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
11-12-2016, 11:43 PM
RE: I'm having problems believing in evolution
(11-12-2016 09:59 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'm starting to suspect the Liars For Jesus™ clubs are sending people our way. Angry

As annoying as it is, it means a lot of basic, entry level questions that people just about to leave the faith often have are always on display in the forum, together with answers (and some "robust" language Big Grin ). I think in the long run the twats are actually fucking themselves over. Smile When I was struggling with this shit two things marked a turning point for me:
  • I realised that faith did not have to be respected. Reading Dawkins' God Delusion was a hell of an eye opener.
  • After sincerely reading a lot of apologists' waffle I concluded they were fucking dense and had no fucking clue what they were talking about.
Both of those points are on display in the forum, probably much to the chagrin of the Liars for Jesus. I think that's also why they frequently try to drag these kind of threads into a trade of insults - they know they can't win on logic or fact based stuff, so their final bastion is to castigate us for not treating them like the delicate flowers they think they deserve to be treated as. Since Christian pastors put a lot of effort into telling their congregation that we're horrible Satanistic bastards who say fuck a lot, this can be an effective tactic, but frankly fuck them.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like morondog's post
11-12-2016, 11:55 PM
RE: I'm having problems believing in evolution
(11-12-2016 11:43 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(11-12-2016 09:59 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'm starting to suspect the Liars For Jesus™ clubs are sending people our way. Angry

As annoying as it is, it means a lot of basic, entry level questions that people just about to leave the faith often have are always on display in the forum, together with answers (and some "robust" language Big Grin ). I think in the long run the twats are actually fucking themselves over. Smile When I was struggling with this shit two things marked a turning point for me:
  • I realised that faith did not have to be respected. Reading Dawkins' God Delusion was a hell of an eye opener.
  • After sincerely reading a lot of apologists' waffle I concluded they were fucking dense and had no fucking clue what they were talking about.
Both of those points are on display in the forum, probably much to the chagrin of the Liars for Jesus. I think that's also why they frequently try to drag these kind of threads into a trade of insults - they know they can't win on logic or fact based stuff, so their final bastion is to castigate us for not treating them like the delicate flowers they think they deserve to be treated as. Since Christian pastors put a lot of effort into telling their congregation that we're horrible Satanistic bastards who say fuck a lot, this can be an effective tactic, but frankly fuck them.

Fuckin A

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
12-12-2016, 12:23 AM
RE: I'm having problems believing in evolution
Hey Ask! Smile

Just in case you miss it. Thumbsup

(11-12-2016 07:39 PM)Ask21771 Wrote:  Then explain this https://www.icr.org/article/5501

(11-12-2016 09:19 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  The ICR is a source which flatly announces its bias, you can check their About Us section in which the clearly show themselves to be religiously based dogmatists.

Regardless of that fact, let's look through their article; first thing to note is the sources for their article, which are at best describable in Hapsburgian degrees of incestuousness.

First claim:
Quote:... including a spider web trapped in an amber deposit that was located in a rock layer supposedly 100 million years older than the time spiders were assumed to have evolved.

This is false; the paper the article is based on, yet curiously does not cite, acknowledges that it is the earliest specimen of preserved web of this kind known, stating:
Quote:Hitherto, the world's oldest fossilized spider silk web in amber has come from c. 130 Ma old Lebanese amber, in which are seen droplets from 7 to 29 m in diameter, plausibly attributed to araneoid secretions (Zschokke 2003, 2004). They have also been found in amber of probable Valanginian age from the Isle of Wight (Jarzembowski et al. 2008) and at Bexhill (Brasier & Yenney, unpubl. data). Much older is a small strand of putative silk seen attached to a fossil spider in the Middle Devonian rocks of Gilboa, New York (Selden et al. 2008) though webs older than the current example from Hastings are as yet unknown.
(Bolding mine)

The cited work demonstrated preserved spider specimens with silk long prior to this discovery; spiders were known to exist long before the ICR article claims, and were known to make webs, and nobody but Mr. Brian Thomas (the article writer) is claiming otherwise. What is important about this discovery is that it is the oldest preserved webbing proper to date.
The paper incedentally if you should like to read it is titled "First report of amber with spider webs and microbial inclusions from the earliest Cretaceous (c. 140 Ma) of Hastings, Sussex"

Second Claim:
Quote:Another example is the discovery in Japan of a fossilized tooth of what was essentially a small T. rex. Such a find would not normally make headlines, but this tooth was located in a rock layer that predated the assigned T. rex "age" by 60 million years.

Again the writed neglected to actually link the source, but rather linked himself discussing the discovery. This guy seriously shows bad form in citation work.

Anyway, that is also wrong; in his article that he cites, he claims:
Quote:The Lower Cretaceous rocks that Raptorex was found in have been assigned a date of approximately 125 million years. But that would mean that this mini-T. rex was unaware that its body plan was not supposed to have evolved for another 60 million years.

This is patently absurd; as again the paper discussing the find acknowledges that the most famous Tyrannosaurs were believed to have evolved from smaller species between the Late Cretaceous and Early Jurassic. Raptorex kriegsteini conforms to all expectations of Tyrannosaurid evolution.
Paper: Tyrannosaurid Skeletal Design First Evolved at Small Body Size

Third claim: man-made artefacts have been found earlier than expected.

Yes, they have. But tools associated with anatomically modern humans have yet to appear prior to humans being there as well, and neither have been found to predate the evolution of humans or their estimated arrival time by migration as known from genetic and fossil evidence.

Fourth claim: amber predating angiosperms.
If this guy could stop citing himself for one minute... He claims that the revision of understanding based on new data that came from this discovery is simply due to the presumption of evolution. There really isn't anything to argue here; he presumes creation so he can't really be the one casting stones given that in his articles he has went about reinterpreting data in the presumption of creationism.

Fifth: amber preserved mammal fur shows structure is largely unchanged as though they were created
Quote:It is as if mammals were specially created, complete with hair from the beginning.

The smacks of my previous point that people in houses made of precariously stacked bibles can't throw stones.Putting that aside; mammaliaformes existed prior to that preserved fur as is known and accepted and the fur has largely not changed because frankly evolutionarily when a system ain't broke, it doesn't often get tended too due the the nature of selective pressures on populations. Also the presumption of creation raises the question of 'explain why whales lack fur, as they are mammals?'

Finally: Pelican beak has remained largely unchanged since they developed. That's extremely common and predicted in evolutionary theory.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
12-12-2016, 01:15 AM
RE: I'm having problems believing in evolution
(11-12-2016 08:01 PM)Ask21771 Wrote:  EITHER ANSWER MY QUESTION OR STAY OFF MY FUCKIN THREAD

Or you do what? Start write with all cap more often?

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Szuchow's post
12-12-2016, 01:38 AM
RE: I'm having problems believing in evolution
(08-12-2016 11:56 AM)Ask21771 Wrote:  I want to believe evolution is real but I'm having two major problems

How does it feel to be a lying cunt? Isnt lying a sin?

Ohh, i forgot, all you need to say is "im sorry, really" Facepalm

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: