A simple challenge for atheists

[FatAndFaithless]

The point is that evolution is a highly subjective science.

You have zero idea about how evolution and science in general work.

You're obviously implying that your opinion about the differences in skull-sizes is a problem for evolution, and using this example of a scientist who doesn't view it as a problem for evolution in an attempt to demonstrate some sort of dogmatism in those who accept evolution, while at the same time reassuring us that you have no science degree. You also demonstrate a distressing ignorance of the scientific method and even what evolution is, so forgive me if I don't find your testimony quite 'convincing'.

[Esquilax]

Of course the statement about the skull being "described as archaic" would never be accepted in a peer reviewed journal. It was just his personal professional opinion.

Sure, and his opinion is more than the first sentence, too: he goes on to say why he thinks the skull is like that, and his ultimate conclusion agrees with evolution, and not with the "problem" you saw with it, making your citation completely pointless.

I never said he did.

So why quote him at all?

Why are there no fossilized chimpanzee skeletons? They are conspicuously absent from the fossil record.

Don't worry, your claim has only been completely incorrect for ten years.

[Norman Humann]

A scientist who believes in evolution is obviously never going to come to the conclusion that anything he find is evidence against evolution.

A creationist who believes in creation is obviously never going to come to the conclusion that anything he finds is evidence against creation.

Fixed that for you.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

But you used his quote as an example of one the 'problems' you have with evolution, when the scientist himself that you're quoting doesn't even imply that it is a problem at all.

What was the point of quoting him at all? What exactly were you trying to say?

A scientist who believes in evolution is obviously never going to come to the conclusion that anything he find is evidence against evolution. The point is that evolution is a highly subjective science.

FALSE

Why do you assume this? disproving evolution would be, perhaps, one of the greatest scientific discoveries of the modern age, perhaps ever.

Can you define what you mean by subjective, in this instance? Evolution is a fact, and ToE is a theory to explain it. So can you clarify please?

Are you going to address the previous issues you've raised that have been rebutted or are we going to continue rebutting every point you skip to?

[Esquilax]

A scientist who believes in evolution is obviously never going to come to the conclusion that anything he find is evidence against evolution.

Do you have any evidence of that, or does it just make you feel better to pretend that everyone who disagrees with you is just close-minded?

The point is that evolution is a highly subjective science.

And yet as an example of this you bring up Neanderthal, a species for whom we have a genetic record, which is an objective indicator that it was a separate species from us, which was the point that you initially claimed was subjective. You make the claim above, but the example you bring to bear was literally completely wrong.

Don't you think the problem might be that you don't understand evolution at all, not that it's a subjective science?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I really wish people would stop arguing against something they don't understand.

[Silver]

A scientist who believes in evolution is obviously never going to come to the conclusion that anything he find is evidence against evolution. The point is that evolution is a highly subjective science.

Oh, will you just stop spouting your biased assertive bullshit as though it has any merit whatsoever?

You, and every other theist, are like the idiots from the movie Idiocracy. You merely want to make the world dumber with your faith.

[The Grand Nudger]

A scientist who believes in evolution is obviously never going to come to the conclusion that anything he find is evidence against evolution. The point is that evolution is a highly subjective science.

I think you're underestimating the sort of impetus -any- scientist would have for providing evidence that evolutionary biology is wrong. Some scientists spend their whole careers trying to establish that some far less important theory is wrong, even just peieces of a theory...even others hypothesis, or fractions of others hypothesis. Scientists, in fact, dispute the components of evolutionary biology, and even their minutia constantly. This is how a career is made. "The Man who showed Darwin, and all of Evolutoionary Biology to be Wrong" would be one hell of an honorific. Certainly get a Nobel for it - lots....and lots...of funding as well, so it's hard to sneeze at that.

I'm not sure why you think modern synth is subjective....unless we're about to spend pages and pages discussing the subjectivity of all knowledge, or some-such?

[Crossless2.0]

Of course the statement about the skull being "described as archaic" would never be accepted in a peer reviewed journal. It was just his personal professional opinion.

His professional opinion? Here's what I found at his website:

http://www.canovan.com

Hello! My name is Jim Vanhollebeke. I am a starving artist, writer, singer, paleoanthropologist researcher. If all the nuts of the world were lined up according to quality degree, I would be near the end by the geniuses. I've always been proud of that(!). I would like to entertain you while sharing some of my unusual interests. Interests such as paleoanthropology, Elvis Tributes, Pinocchio, Apes, wolves, satire, special effects, artwork, and comedy. I hope I can blend these interests into a photo gallery that you will enjoy and perhaps return to. I hope to continue adding to the gallery or adding new galleries far into the future - so please stay tuned! If you have any comments or suggestions , please write: jim at canovan.com. Also we'd like you to visit our unique PHOTO SERVICES WEBPAGE where you can find out how easily we can put YOUR face on someone else's body! Just click here: YourPhotos.

Saying you are a 'paleoanthropologist researcher' isn't exactly the same thing as saying you are a paleoanthropologist (with relevant degrees and a history of publishing peer reviewed articles). I gather that paleoanthropology is an amateur interest of his, not a profession. And I gather that Elvis impersonations are more of an actual profession for him than paleoanthropology. Surely you can find more distinguished citations to support your point, whatever it is?

[Esquilax]

I really wish people would stop arguing against something they don't understand.

I made a thread about this a while back, but I don't think it's actually possible to fully understand evolution and still disagree with it. Ignorance is required for evolution denial in this day and age, which is a conclusion my thread bore out: none of the evolution deniers that chimed in had a full understanding of evolution, and it was their ignorance that formed the basis of their disagreement.