Intelligent Design

[The Grand Nudger]

The theory of evolution, at least the one I am arguing against is that we share one common ancestor and that life could start from molecules.

You have your own theory of evolution to argue against?  That's probably where you ran into trouble. We call that pitching straw round these parts.

[ApeNotKillApe]

You accept that variation through mutation and natural selection are factual, and yet you claim you don't accept evolution; with that one statement you have demonstrated very clearly that you don't possess even a basic understanding of the term.

You don't understand that mutation doesn't lead to the kind of structures required for new structures and functions to evolve. I do understand evolution. If we're defining it as change, then yes evolution happens.

So what do you think gradual change over long periods of time results in? Nothing?

[robvalue]

I do have you on ignore yes AAA but I still catch snippets of your posts in others' replies, and I want to dispel some of the falsehoods you keep putting out for the benefit of the general reading audience. I do not, however, want to talk to you. I don't expect you to reply to what I say, because I won't generally be reading it. I have given you more than enough of a chance to honestly defend your position and address my questions and you failed utterly. I'm not going to stand by however and watch you throw poison all over the forum.

You long ago blew any credibility with me by proving you don't understand evolution, the scientific method and basic logic, and will throw in any terrible creationist style argument to try and overturn one very specific scientific theory. What you won't do is have the honesty to say why you are doing this, which is obvious to us all. You pretend it's out of some scientific rigour, but it's apparent to all you don't have the first clue about science in general. Yeah, I know more about how things actually work than you, that should be clear to anyone. Even though I don't know all the technical information, I understand the overall theory of evolution and you don't even seem to understand what a theory is.

Again, if you respond to me, I won't be able to see it. I'm just explaining for the benefit of everyone else why I'm not interested in dialogue with you, and why I'm correcting what you're putting out there whenever I do become aware of it. One of the big goals for me here is to help the "silent audience", those people reading the threads who may or may not be signed up. That's a big audience, and they deserve to see nonsense being pointed out for what it is.

If AAA has yet admitted any actual reason why it matters in the slightest whether or not we are designed, I'd be interested to know. (I can't be bothered to trawl all his posts to find out.) Dodging all my important questions while focusing on an irrelevant throwaway comment I made is awfully dishonest, and does not represent someone interested in the truth. If you really are a science student, which I serious doubt, you need to listen and learn from the many experienced and learned members here who really do know their stuff. Although I'm intellectually "telling you off" so to speak, I do so partly for your own benefit. If you continue with this attitude, and these misunderstandings about science, you will get nowhere. Seriously. Science requires the ability to put away preconceptions and personal beliefs and to focus just on the evidence. You've admitted you do believe in evolution by agreeing with what the theory says, then just deny that you do believe it. It's clear cognitive dissidence at work, like when I prove to someone 0.99999 recurring equals 1, and they agree with every single step but then reject the conclusion because of an emotional response. So please, for your own good, try and be more objective. Learn from us, because you are simply wrong on many matters. If you take this approach to every area of science, you're just not doing science at all.

[ApeNotKillApe]

If we're defining it as change, then yes evolution happens.

That is literally what evolution means.

[ignoramus]

Shit Rob! Is this a good time to talk to you about my healing crystals? hehe

[robvalue]

Lol sure! Did I get a bit carried away there? Better get off my soapbox

Well, if they're called healing crystals, they must be magic so I'll take 20k.

[ignoramus]

Yeah, we all get a bit battle weary fighting the BS all the time.
If you get a chance, watch that ID vid AAA linked to.
I counted about 10 fallacies in the first few minutes ...I had to stop watching ... I was feeling a coma coming on...

[robvalue]

Ah, logical fallacies. My favourite flavour of fail.

If I feel my stomach can take it, I'll check it out later, cheers

But come on, anti-science science students now? Should we dump all of science or just the inconvenient bits?

I really was trying to help him with the dressing down. He needs to hear certain things if he's to make any progress.

[Pat Mustard]

Change is a fact. Natural selection is a fact.

..then QED.....

Neo-Darwinian evolution is far from fact.  Saying it is a fact does not make it a fact.

I thought that we were discussing the theory of evolution?  I think that "neo-darwinian evolution" is a term for some cretinous non-science you've dreamt up as an effigy of straw.  

And biology

...and biology..........what?

Neo-Darwinian is the term given by creatards like Junk Status above to the modern synthesis try and muddy the waters on evidence for evolution. They alredy falsely believe they've vanquised Darwin, so they try to denigrate modern evolutionary theory and its masses of evidence by associating it with him.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I feel nauseated to even see that there's a person in this world who can get the basic definitions of science and the basic principles of biology THAT WRONG and still feel entitled to declare the entire scientific community to be the liars.

Astounding.

Dunning-Kreuger Syndrome? Or just blinded by religious fanaticism and willing to lie for their beliefs? I wonder.

Lying for Jesus is still lying.