How to control the people : Keep them stupid and uninformed

[piasabird]

Camels are thought to have come from South America.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Learning about the theory of evolution serves no real purpose. It does not make animals smarter or more beautiful or stronger or healthier. A pile of bones does not prove evolution, but it might prove extinction.

Where did Camels Come From? Now that is an interesting question. They were not native to Israel. This one question may appear to prove evolution or it may just prove something else.

They found whale fossils in the Sahara desert. Does that prove Africans evolved from whales?

You are a walking, bumbling example of why evolution should be taught in schools. Your ignorance leads you to ask questions equivalent of "why are there clouds if gravity exists".

 

[J.Wilkins]

I find the subject of where Camels come from to be quite interesting. Almost as interesting as horse fossils in North America.

http://eol.org/pages/7686/details

There you go, everything you ever wanted to know of the evolution of Camelidae.

 

[soulcougher73]

Learning about the theory of evolution serves no real purpose. It does not make animals smarter or more beautiful or stronger or healthier. A pile of bones does not prove evolution, but it might prove extinction.

Where did Camels Come From? Now that is an interesting question. They were not native to Israel. This one question may appear to prove evolution or it may just prove something else.

They found whale fossils in the Sahara desert. Does that prove Africans evolved from whales?

HOLY WTF BATMAN!!

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Learning about the theory of evolution serves no real purpose. It does not make animals smarter or more beautiful or stronger or healthier. A pile of bones does not prove evolution, but it might prove extinction.

Where did Camels Come From? Now that is an interesting question. They were not native to Israel. This one question may appear to prove evolution or it may just prove something else.

They found whale fossils in the Sahara desert. Does that prove Africans evolved from whales?

I find the subject of where Camels come from to be quite interesting. Almost as interesting as horse fossils in North America.

Your ignorance and unwillingness to learn is impressive. I truly hope you're never in a position to teach anything to anybody.

 

[repoman0]

I truly hope you're never in a position to teach anything to anybody.

Sounds like you don't need to worry about that. To teach something one has to know something.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Sounds like you don't need to worry about that. To teach something one has to know something.

Well that's the rub isn't it? Some people 'know' a thing to be true without it being true, whereupon they teach others this 'truth', and the cancer spreads.

 

[Paratus]

"Proven" becomes "proven useful" without blinking your eye. Then you act like that is what you said all along.

That you didn't understand that off the bat means your science education has been lacking.

Words matter. I wouldn't have said anything if you said that originally. One could argue against that it is proven useful as well. The theory is making wrong predictions left and right.

I can point to peer reviewed articles and experiments that say otherwise. I can point to biologists, (like Zin), using the theory day in and day out to create and explain tangible things

You have provided nothing but opinion so it is easily dismissed.

You can't demonstrate using scientific journals that mutation and selection is an adequate mechanism that to cause a self replicating molecule to turn into people, pine trees, and blue whales. It simply doesn't exist. It an article of blind faith, your bluster notwithstanding.

I absolutely can. And again you provide nothing but opinion without evidence. Dismissed.

 

[woolfe9998]

"Proven" becomes "proven useful" without blinking your eye. Then you act like that is what you said all along. Words matter. I wouldn't have said anything if you said that originally. One could argue against that it is proven useful as well. The theory is making wrong predictions left and right.

You can't demonstrate using scientific journals that mutation and selection is an adequate mechanism that to cause a self replicating molecule to turn into people, pine trees, and blue whales. It simply doesn't exist. It an article of blind faith, your bluster notwithstanding.

It's directly observable in a laboratory, e.g.:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...ri-Dish-Displays-Evolution-in-Space-and-Time/

 

[Grooveriding]

You are a walking, bumbling example of why evolution should be taught in schools. Your ignorance leads you to ask questions equivalent of "why are there clouds if gravity exists".

My favorite reply to the uneducated or creationists when they latch on to the word theory, which really represents their lack of understanding what a scientific theory is contrasted to the definition of theory on its own, is bringing up gravity. Gravity is described by a scientific theory and everyone accepts its reality as you don't see anyone skydiving without a parachute or jumping off a tall building without the expectation of death. Granted, it is an easier theory to observe than evolution, but it is still a force that is not completely understood, that is explained by a scientific theory.

Creationists have a very difficult time with science because science is doggedly honest. It does not claim to have a complete understanding and full explanation of phenomena when there is more to learn, but this in no way negates what has been learned thus far, unless evidence produced by the same mechanisms corrects prior understanding. Whereas creationism is deception and absolute claims derived from feelings, based on myths that came out of what is now the Middle East - written by goat herders and cobblers from several millennia ago. Creationists tend to want to project this ideological way of thinking onto science, not understanding science takes its approach from the opposite end of the spectrum.

Most of the time this can be accounted for by neophytes and Dunning-Kruger leading people to make claims from positions of ignorance and let them be reinforced by their fellows doing the same. A wise individual when ignorant will consult with enough experts to discover the available data and consensus. The really concerning creationists to me, are not the ignoramuses like the one in this thread, but the individuals who have received an education that has touched on relevant subject matter, but still reject reality. They are out there. I've met physicians that reject evolution due to religious dogma, very sad, when as mentioned earlier in this thread; all biology relies on the cornerstone of evolution to explain how the biological systems of the Earth's species have developed.

Nonsense like creationism being taught in schools, whether in isolation or as a counterpoint to evolution, is the real abomination. It is a desire to drag us backwards several millennia, when the current day understanding of nature couldn't even account for where the Sun went at night. The advancements and improvements to our lives we enjoy today have been given to us by science, not a non-existent deity that enjoys watching us masturbate, defecate and playing voyeur to our private thoughts.

 

[IronWing]

They found whale fossils in the Sahara desert. Does that prove Africans evolved from whales?

Yes. They also found giant ground sloth fossils in North America which is clear proof that shopping malls evolved from sloths.

 

[buckshot24]

It's directly observable in a laboratory, e.g.:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...ri-Dish-Displays-Evolution-in-Space-and-Time/

It is amazing that you think this demonstrates it.

 

[Paratus]

It is amazing that you think this demonstrates it.

Dismissed

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

It is amazing that you think this demonstrates it.

So what would demonstrate it? What's your barrier of proof?

 

[buckshot24]

That you didn't understand that off the bat means your science education has been lacking.

No it means I interpreted your words as written and you agree that you didn't mean them literally as written. Nonsense is not uncommon.

I can point to peer reviewed articles and experiments that say otherwise. I can point to biologists, (like Zin), using the theory day in and day out to create and explain tangible things

Bluster. Give me one example of these tangible things and I'll show you why.

You have provided nothing but opinion so it is easily dismissed.

As if you've provided anything other than your opinion in return.

Confirmation bias is a helluva drug. You can't. Go ahead and try.

 

[Paratus]

No it means I interpreted your words as written and you agree that you didn't mean them literally as written. Nonsense is not uncommon.
Bluster. Give me one example of these tangible things and I'll show you why.
As if you've provided anything other than your opinion in return.

You've been provided an example on this very page and you rejected it without reason or evidence.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Give me one example of these tangible things and I'll show you why.

Yearly flu vaccines, based on predictions of evolutionary tract and infection rates?

 

[buckshot24]

So what would demonstrate it? What's your barrier of proof?

That's the problem, isn't it? What could demonstrate the claims? Certainly not an active site in an enzyme slightly changing shape to be able to bind to something it couldn't before. Certainly not adaptation. Things adapt, things change, sometimes nature picks something that has changed over something that has stayed the same in specific conditions. That doesn't show things like hemoglobin, or Krebs cycles could come into existence via mutation and selection. Mutations are just genetic copying errors, just keep that in mind.

The claim is that your cognition "evolved" into its current form and you point to these E. Coli adapting to its environment as "demonstration".

 

[buckshot24]

You've been provided an example on this very page and you rejected it without reason or evidence.

It was provided without reason and evidence. Why does it demonstrate the thing I've asked you to demonstrate?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

That's the problem, isn't it? What could demonstrate the claims? Certainly not an active site in an enzyme slightly changing shape to be able to bind to something it couldn't before. Certainly not adaptation. Things adapt, things change, sometimes nature picks something that has changed over something that has stayed the same in specific conditions. That doesn't show things like hemoglobin, or Krebs cycles could come into existence via mutation and selection. Mutations are just genetic copying errors, just keep that in mind.

The claim is that your cognition "evolved" into its current form and you point to these E. Coli adapting to its environment as "demonstration".

Your implication is that you refuse to extrapolate evidence to the point of what you see around you, essentially unless you see it happen, it cannot possibly be explained, as anything can simply be refuted by 'you can't say it happened that way because I won't extrapolate it that far'.

By that logic, absolutely nothing that happens on scales longer than a human lifetime can ever be sufficiently explained, as they cannot be reproduced in the same manner in a timeframe by which it cannot be observed. This removes some 99% of science from your world view, and leaves you with assumptions and dogma.

 

[buckshot24]

Yearly flu vaccines, based on predictions of evolutionary tract and infection rates?

Yeah, things change, things adapt. Does that mean nervous systems could happen this way? A microbe needn't have turned into blue whales to expect flu virus to change. You don't require the grand story to be true to anticipate these small changes.

 

[soulcougher73]

Your implication is that you refuse to extrapolate evidence to the point of what you see around you, essentially unless you see it happen, it cannot possibly be explained, as anything can simply be refuted by 'you can't say it happened that way because I won't extrapolate it that far'.

By that logic, absolutely nothing that happens on scales longer than a human lifetime can ever be sufficiently explained, as they cannot be reproduced in the same manner in a timeframe by which it cannot be observed. This removes some 99% of science from your world view, and leaves you with assumptions and dogma.

Makes you wonder how he could be religious. He never saw god create anything, yet he believes the story in a book happened lol

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yeah, things change, things adapt. Does that mean nervous systems could happen this way? A microbe needn't have turned into blue whales to expect flu virus to change. You don't require the grand story to be true to anticipate these small changes.

Well it happened some way, and it sure as shit wasn't a bearded white dude in the sky. I'll rely on evidence based on observations for how the Lego are shaped and how they fit together, you can continue looking at the Lego Star Destroyer, convinced that it couldn't possibly be put together either a) with plastic blocks, or b) by human hands, because the events are just too complex and unknowable.

 

[buckshot24]

Your implication is that you refuse to extrapolate evidence to the point of what you see around you, essentially unless you see it happen, it cannot possibly be explained, as anything can simply be refuted by 'you can't say it happened that way because I won't extrapolate it that far'.

By that logic, absolutely nothing that happens on scales longer than a human lifetime can ever be sufficiently explained, as they cannot be reproduced in the same manner in a timeframe by which it cannot be observed. This removes some 99% of science from your world view, and leaves you with assumptions and dogma.

I refuse to accept unreasonable extrapolations. We all should. Watching a baby crawl across the floor is not an example of how that baby could fly to the moon. There are fundamental barriers to that extrapolation.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I refuse to accept unreasonable extrapolations. We all should. Watching a baby crawl across the floor is not an example of how that baby could fly to the moon. There are fundamental barriers to that extrapolation.

Only if you don't understand how the baby could get there, via a -> b -> c ->.... -> z. We've got an understanding of that via biology and the scientific process, why are you ignoring it?