Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution

[Hollie]

Asexual reproduction is not uncommon.

It's quite common, but sexual reproduction couldn't have just popped into existence by itself.

I never claimed you were trying to convert anyone. I wrote you were proselytizing. You’re a salesman. Instead of hawking used chevy’s, you’re hawking your version of the gods.

What do you think proelytizing means?

"... sexual reproduction couldn't have popped into existence by itself''
You forgot to append ''because I say so''.

It's an odd dynamic with the hyper-religious. They insist their gods can pop into existence by themselves and then these gods can pop all of existence into creation... like magic, but biological organisms can't reproduce.

Why do you bring your hard-sell brand of proselytizing into a science forum?

You and your kind are losing badly as it's not what I say, but what the cells and sexual reproduction says. It's too complicated at the simplest levels for the lies and fake science proselytizing of atheist scientists.

I note that you're angry and emotive.

"It's too complicated'' is something of a mantra among the ID'iot creationers. Yet, as we see with regularity, these sane ID'iot creationers are the least educated in the sciences they hope to diminish.

 

[ding]

Not evolving randomly but with purpose to create intelligence.

Maybe...? Anyone who claims to know that for a fact is a liar.

And, as always, feel free to sprinkle, "My gods did that!" on anything you like. It affects nothing. It adds no knowledge and yields no useful predictions, nor does it hinder scientific study. It's useless garnish, like paprika. But if it pleases you, then knock yourself out.

The forces driving the not random, purposeful evolution of molecules are the laws of nature itself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The forces driving the not random, purposeful evolution of molecules are the laws of nature itself.

Agreed. That's why there are no stars that are cubes, and why water molecules are always the same shape: selection by natural laws.

 

[abu afak]

.......

So you already lost on ODDS because your Failed to be able to enumerate the amount of chances there were to overcome them.
Also, as I said, even your simpleton math was wrong because of molecular tendencies.

Rational Wiki
Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)

​

"...Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does not justify confecting whatever explanation one would prefer. The inexplicable is just that, and does not justify speculation as proof.​

​

Sometimes creationists compute the astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so. They gloss over the fact that chemical laws trim most of the extraneous possibilities away. For instance, there are many ways to theoretically arrange hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in a molecule, but in reality, most of what forms is H2O. Note that the creationist's fundamental error is not his ignorance of this fact, but the assumption that there is nothing more to know.".."​

Argument from incredulity

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen or does not exist because they cannot personally understand the workings.

rationalwiki.org

`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

.......

So you already lost on ODDS because your Failed to be able to enumerate the amount of chances there were to overcome them.
Also, as I said, even your simpleton math was wrong because of molecular tendencies.

Rational Wiki
Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)

​

"...Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does not justify confecting whatever explanation one would prefer. The inexplicable is just that, and does not justify speculation as proof.​

​

Sometimes creationists compute the astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so. They gloss over the fact that chemical laws trim most of the extraneous possibilities away. For instance, there are many ways to theoretically arrange hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in a molecule, but in reality, most of what forms is H2O. Note that the creationist's fundamental error is not his ignorance of this fact, but the assumption that there is nothing more to know.".."​

Argument from incredulity

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen or does not exist because they cannot personally understand the workings.

rationalwiki.org

`

You keep making the same losing argument: there was a first cell, therefore Evolution! Random stuff bumping together!! We know that the random stuff beat the odds, even if its a number with a million zeros to 1, because there was a first cell, are we're right!

 

[Ringtone]

Darwin, and a subsequent LANDSLIDE of EVIDENCE: Yes.

Wiki:

Contents

• 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
  • 1.1 Genetics
  • 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
• 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
  • 2.1 Atavisms
  • 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
  • 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
  • 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
  • 2.5 Vestigial structures
  • 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
• 3 Evidence from paleontology
  • 3.1 Fossil record
  • 3.2 Limitations
  • 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
• 4 Evidence from biogeography
  • 4.1 Continental distribution
  • 4.2 Island biogeography
  • 4.3 Ring species
  • 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
• 5 Evidence from selection
  • 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
  • 5.2 Invertebrates
  • 5.3 Microbes
  • 5.4 Plants and fungi
  • 5.5 Vertebrates
• 6 Evidence from speciation
  • 6.1 Fossils
  • 6.2 Invertebrates
  • 6.3 Plants
  • 6.4 Vertebrates
• 7 Evidence from coloration
  • 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
  • 7.2 Camouflage
• 8 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
• 9 See also
• 10 References
• 11 Sources
• 12 External links

`

You're claiming that you proved naturalism is true?! That's weird.

 

[Ringtone]

Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)

​

​

​

There's no way in hell mere chemistry could have ever produced anything even remotely akin to a living organism.

The only fallacy anywhere in sight is your argument from magic mushrooms.

In the meantime, an informed argument from reality: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

 

[abu afak]

You're claiming that you proved naturalism is true?! That's weird.

If by Naturalism you mean Evolution. Yes.
Be glad to embarrass you for another 100 pages.

I KICKED Your ass thru every Pew Reverend Ringtone.

You and CrusaderFrank need to stop using and pretense of Science and just tell the truth....

You believe in god and not evolution because you were brainwashed as children, and unlike many, weren't smart enough to give up Santa Claus.

That simple, really.

`

 

[Hollie]

.......

So you already lost on ODDS because your Failed to be able to enumerate the amount of chances there were to overcome them.
Also, as I said, even your simpleton math was wrong because of molecular tendencies.

Rational Wiki
Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)

​

"...Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does not justify confecting whatever explanation one would prefer. The inexplicable is just that, and does not justify speculation as proof.​

​

Sometimes creationists compute the astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so. They gloss over the fact that chemical laws trim most of the extraneous possibilities away. For instance, there are many ways to theoretically arrange hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in a molecule, but in reality, most of what forms is H2O. Note that the creationist's fundamental error is not his ignorance of this fact, but the assumption that there is nothing more to know.".."​

Argument from incredulity

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen or does not exist because they cannot personally understand the workings.

rationalwiki.org

`

You keep making the same losing argument: there was a first cell, therefore Evolution! Random stuff bumping together!! We know that the random stuff beat the odds, even if its a number with a million zeros to 1, because there was a first cell, are we're right!

That's really pretty ignorant. Biological evolution is fundamentally not a random process. It's really remarkable that the science illiterate make so much noise about a subject they know nothing about.


Here is the definition of theory from the National Academy of Science:

"Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses."

Read that sentence carefully, and then ask yourself "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" Look at the definition again...

It's true that not every theory withstands the test of time and goes on to be considered a fact by nearly all of the scientific community, but evolution is one that has. More from the NAS- they say that evolution is "something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong."

So.... now would be a good time to offer that ID'iot creationer ''General Theory of Super-Magical Creation"

A'splain us about your various gods and how super-magical means were used to create the flat earth we live on.

A'splain us the theory of ''The Gawds Did It''

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You keep making the same losing argument: there was a first cell, therefore Evolution!

Nobody has made that argument ever, you embarrassing liar.

 

[Hollie]

Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)

​

​

​

There's no way in hell mere chemistry could have ever produced anything even remotely akin to a living organism.

The only fallacy anywhere in sight is your argument from magic mushrooms.

In the meantime, an informed argument from reality: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

"There's no way in hell mere chemistry could have ever produced anything even remotely akin to a living organism''.

".... because I say so''

"I have no data, no rational explanation, no argument to support ''because I say so'', its just.... "because I say so''

 

[Hollie]

Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)

​

​

​

There's no way in hell mere chemistry could have ever produced anything even remotely akin to a living organism.

The only fallacy anywhere in sight is your argument from magic mushrooms.

In the meantime, an informed argument from reality: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

A cavalcade of plagiarized William Lane Craig nonsense.

 

[Ringtone]

If by Naturalism you mean Evolution. Yes.

No. I mean naturalism. Period.

Be glad to embarrass you for another 100 pages.

I KICKED Your ass thru every Pew Reverend Ringtone.

You haven't laid so much as a glove on me, tough guy.

You and CrusaderFrank need to stop using and pretense of Science and just tell the truth....

You believe in god and not evolution because you were brainwashed as children, and unlike many, weren't smart enough to give up Santa Claus.

That simple, really.

Whatever you say Reverend Magic Shrooms, but arguments from ad hominem and ignorance do not impress. Mere chemistry does not even begin to account for the myriad, complex organic compounds of living organisms, let alone alone account for their subsequent structures.

My observations stand and stay: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

 

[Ringtone]

Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)

​

​

​

There's no way in hell mere chemistry could have ever produced anything even remotely akin to a living organism.

The only fallacy anywhere in sight is your argument from magic mushrooms.

In the meantime, an informed argument from reality: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

A cavalcade of plagiarized William Lane Craig nonsense.

Calm down, Karen.

 

[Hollie]

Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)

​

​

​

There's no way in hell mere chemistry could have ever produced anything even remotely akin to a living organism.

The only fallacy anywhere in sight is your argument from magic mushrooms.

In the meantime, an informed argument from reality: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

A cavalcade of plagiarized William Lane Craig nonsense.

Calm down, Karen.

Laughing at your silly attempts at arguments you can't defend.

 

[ding]

The forces driving the not random, purposeful evolution of molecules are the laws of nature itself.

Agreed. That's why there are no stars that are cubes, and why water molecules are always the same shape: selection by natural laws.

And why life and intelligence exist as well.

It's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence.

 

[Mindful]

America was founded not, as other nation states, by a violent king looking to carve out a kingdom, but by wise men with a vision of an enlightened country, the most free in all the world.

Aided by the perfidious French.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You keep making the same losing argument: there was a first cell, therefore Evolution!

Nobody has made that argument ever, you embarrassing liar.

You're claiming that you proved naturalism is true?! That's weird.

If by Naturalism you mean Evolution. Yes.
Be glad to embarrass you for another 100 pages.

I KICKED Your ass thru every Pew Reverend Ringtone.

You and CrusaderFrank need to stop using and pretense of Science and just tell the truth....

You believe in god and not evolution because you were brainwashed as children, and unlike many, weren't smart enough to give up Santa Claus.

That simple, really.

`

I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You keep making the same losing argument: there was a first cell, therefore Evolution!

Nobody has made that argument ever, you embarrassing liar.

Do you stand by your assertion that life first "evolved" on Earth by random collisions?

 

[Blues Man]

I try not to talk to evangelicals about anything.