Evolutionists, how do you explain this?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

I wonder how this individual knows someones politics, based upon a discussion of science

I am curious.

Based on pointless wild guesses and high-leveled insecurities.

All of which I'm sure Jaden pulled out of their rear-end.

And awesome post, btw, good to see someone who actually works in the science industry posting in here!

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

I wonder how this individual knows someones politics, based upon a discussion of science

I am curious.

The same way the poster in question "knows more" about science than those of us with degrees and backgrounds in related fields. You're about as likely to receive a bonafide rebuttal as I was after pointing out the fanciful tale regarding the size of G. Blacki molars compared to those of HSS. It's hard to take someone seriously when they start ranting about comparing IQ's but they don't even understand basics like the difference between Genus and Species. It's a common mistake made all too often by YEC parrots who don't bother looking into matters themselves and instead run a copy and paste job from some b.s. Ken Ham site. They make similar statements regarding the Ceolocanth as if they are a singular fish. And anytime I point out the willful ignorance that arises from a failure to engage in due diligence, you can hear a pin drop the room goes so quiet. It really is too bad because most of the people I engage in these discussions with are actually rather intelligent people. They simply allow someone else to speak for them when they attempt to dispute the science. The only time their own words come out are when the ad hominem attacks start to roll out. There are a lot of Christians and other religious minded people working on the biological and Earth sciences so I just don't understand why a conman who always has their hand out looking for a donation (ken ham for example) with zero credentials but a world reknowned geneticisr like Dr. Francis Collins from the HGP are all but ignored.





B

a reply to: peter vlar

par for the course.

2nd

originally posted by: xstealth
evolution is the most ridiculous theory I've heard.

They can't even explain how two species of different sex could evolve at the same time to breed without wild theories that make it sound even more stupid.

How does two species breed and what does that have anything to do with evolution?

originally posted by: firefromabove

Cool story, but...

What you speak of has never been observed.

Evolution really is a fairy tale for adults

When was the last time you saw God? Don't point to the good book, books are where fairy tales come from.

originally posted by: uninspired

originally posted by: firefromabove

Cool story, but...

What you speak of has never been observed.

Evolution really is a fairy tale for adults

When was the last time you saw God? Don't point to the good book, books are where fairy tales come from.

that was an uninspired burn.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Masterjaden

Anyone that has to tell people they're smart or brings up their IQ in an argument is a moron, plain and simple.

"If you have to tell people you're the king..."

IQ doesn't test intelligence it tests your ability to problem solve. But surprisingly many who score High in problem solving can often be inept in comprehension.

Certain careers score better for problem solving like anything in life the mire you do it the better you score. But even these tests overall are meaningless people that have retaken within 6 months have scored 20 point difrences. By the way SATs and ACT's are IQ tests.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: xstealth
evolution is the most ridiculous theory I've heard.

They can't even explain how two species of different sex could evolve at the same time to breed without wild theories that make it sound even more stupid.

How does two species breed and what does that have anything to do with evolution?

Had the same question they seem confused.

a reply to: TzarChasm

There's no point is refuting evolution. Its a proven fact. But science takes as back till the big bang. For the big bang to happen there needed to be an atom. The matter-Antimatter debate is still out there am not to vast in that field however even science explains that there was something in the beginning that started the entire process, and we evolved from that.

I think Scientist are to stubborn to acknowledge Spirituality, and Religious people are to stubborn to accept science. For me they perfectly align with each other. Problem is most religions are driven by selfish intentions and not spirituality.

originally posted by: Kioko

I think Scientist are to stubborn to acknowledge Spirituality, and Religious people are to stubborn to accept science. For me they perfectly align with each other. Problem is most religions are driven by selfish intentions and not spirituality.

There should not even be discussions between religion and science since they are trying to answer two different questions. With religion they want to answer the Why and the How should not be an issue. Science wants to answer the How with the Why not being an answerable scientific question.

In the end evolution could just as easily be God's command or non-intellectual design. Personally I like evolution as God's method for life over just snapping his fingers...hehe

a reply to: peter vlar

Ahh of course, that god(s) given intuition these folks have.... I'm all for going with the gut if there is no other evidence. Hell in Plant when I've a process about to go tits up, and I need to make a decision then an there, sometimes it's "gut" (ie experience of these things, to make a guess when the evidence is scarce). But only the most alt-right individual would call this discussion liberal

a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

There are a few of us. I work in the Pharma Industry (in Process Development) but I did a degree in Bioinformatics for fun a few years back.

Jaden seems to have a rear like one of those hankie tricks that Magicians do

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Why and the How should not be an issue. Science wants to answer the How with the Why not being an answerable scientific question

You are wrong there. Science aims to answer "why" as well as "how". Without knowing why things work the way they do, we wouldn't be able to build ships, airplanes, computers, and pretty much everything else we use in our modern lives.

Religion doesn't really serve any purpose, apart from providing some emotional relief to individuals, and allowing the powerful to control the masses.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

There are a few of us. I work in the Pharma Industry (in Process Development) but I did a degree in Bioinformatics for fun a few years back.

Jaden seems to have a rear like one of those hankie tricks that Magicians do

That's awesome! I really have a lot of respect for those that do the time and get their degrees in science and research!!

And as far as Jaden goes...as unfortunate as it is, I'd say what you said is true!

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Why and the How should not be an issue. Science wants to answer the How with the Why not being an answerable scientific question

You are wrong there. Science aims to answer "why" as well as "how". Without knowing why things work the way they do, we wouldn't be able to build ships, airplanes, computers, and pretty much everything else we use in our modern lives.

Religion doesn't really serve any purpose, apart from providing some emotional relief to individuals, and allowing the powerful to control the masses.

Very well said!

I agree completely. I am fully aware and accepting of the fact that there are still so many people that identify with some form of religion. You're right, it does help a lot of people get through emotionally. And again, it has been very useful in fooling and controlling. I think the major issue I have (besides the obvious one of it being used to control and stupefy the public) is that there are so many people who completely ignore legitimate scientific research and findings and make this nonsensical opinion known by arguing in a public forum base.

They, again, state their nonsensical opinion and as soon as they hit that post button, they cover their eyes, plug their ears and start screaming "Lalalalala, I can't hear you!"

Good post!

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Why and the How should not be an issue. Science wants to answer the How with the Why not being an answerable scientific question

You are wrong there. Science aims to answer "why" as well as "how". Without knowing why things work the way they do, we wouldn't be able to build ships, airplanes, computers, and pretty much everything else we use in our modern lives.

Religion doesn't really serve any purpose, apart from providing some emotional relief to individuals, and allowing the powerful to control the masses.

i think you are confusing things a bit. science helps us understand "how" the earth formed and various species evolved to populate it. it does not explain "why" there appears to be no other life in the solar system or galaxy. science helps us understand "how" microbiology operates, but not "why" innocent children contract cancer. "why" is the reason a fireman should jump in front of a moving car to save a puppy, but "how" is the body armor and physical training that enables him to succeed.

a reply to: GetHyped

LOL that's ridiculous, being a king is self evident, being intelligent is only self evident to others who are intelligent... So often those who are intelligent will have to inform the fools of said fact...lol

Jaden

So your inability to use a cogent illustration of your point illustrates my point exactly. lol

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: GetHyped

LOL that's ridiculous, being a king is self evident, being intelligent is only self evident to others who are intelligent... So often those who are intelligent will have to inform the fools of said fact...lol

Jaden

So your inability to use a cogent illustration of your point illustrates my point exactly. lol

a genius is only as evident as the solutions he devises.

a king is only as evident as the people he rules.

a god is only as evident as the cruelty he averts.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: GetHyped

LOL that's ridiculous, being a king is self evident, being intelligent is only self evident to others who are intelligent... So often those who are intelligent will have to inform the fools of said fact...lol

Jaden

So your inability to use a cogent illustration of your point illustrates my point exactly. lol

I think you are missing the point.

If a person or a group of people didn't even realize another person is their king (i.e., nothing in their lives involves being the subjects of that king, nor nothing the king does affects the lives of those people), then those people may as well not even be subjects the king at all. In that case, the king become irrelevant to them -- even if the king insists that he is their ruler, his insistence does not make it so.

If a person is intelligent, it will be self-evident in the way that person interacts with others. If through those interactions with others, the fact that they are intelligent cannot be discerned, then they are not intelligent -- even if the person insists on telling people he is intelligent, that insistence does not make it so.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: GetHyped

LOL that's ridiculous, being a king is self evident, being intelligent is only self evident to others who are intelligent... So often those who are intelligent will have to inform the fools of said fact...lol

Jaden

So your inability to use a cogent illustration of your point illustrates my point exactly. lol

So you're trying to say that Stephen Hawking, or Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein needed to go around letting people know that they were/are intelligent because the average public doesn't understand that they were/are smarter than they are? Sorry but no. That complete twaddle. The entire premise is nothing but your own safe space, snowflake decorated strawman.

Intelligence and knowledge aren't the same thing. I went to school for a very long time so that I could learn about things that you feel capable of commenting on based on a photograph scaled to fit into the criteria that ATS allows and when people clearly demonstrate that you don't have the foggiest notion of what you're talking about, you simply move on to your next strawman or ad hominem. That's not intelligence. That's cowardice.

At least "intelligent" people are aware of the limitations of their knowledge and skill sets. You on the other hand, have no education or background in Anthopology but think you know more than Paleoanthropologists. That's not intelligence. That's delusion.