science denialism (Page 7)

AchillesSinatra: So they're reasoning, but not rationally?

zeffur: A reason is:
a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action:
src: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/reason?s=t

It can be wrong & it can be irrational. Some people state their reasons when in reality they are emotional responses.

AchillesSinatra: It's a bit like saying "They're rising, but not upwardly"

AchillesSinatra: Then, the normal response would be to claim their "reasoning" is flawed.

i.e. they are not reasoning, even if they think they are.

AchillesSinatra: Gosh, you're fast with the dictionary.

Ever stop to think for yourself?

zeffur: Why reinvent the wheel when it isn't necessary??

AchillesSinatra: So let me get this straight: They're reasoning without reason?

zeffur: No.. they are irrational but think they are reasonable--much like your evolutioners.

AchillesSinatra: Now, finally, you make sense.

At least not butchering our beautiful language any more.

Whether they are or not is a different matter, of course.

Don't you think it a little hubristic to claim that the finest scientific minds are all behaving irrationally? And you're the last redoubt of reason?

zeffur: re: "AchillesSinatra: Don't you think it a little to hubristic to claim that the finest scientific minds are all behaving irrationally? And you're the last redoubt of reason?"

As I see no proof or reasonable explanation for their illogical claims, I don't think it is at all hubristic to think they are FoS. You may think they are gods, but, I don't. And a lack of ability to prove what they assert is 'scientific fact' means to me that they are dishonest & fraudsters.

AchillesSinatra: I believe you may have said that one or two billion times before.

zeffur: Do you actually think humans evolved from fish--as they assert is true & consistent with their evolution drivel?

zeffur: Have you seen sufficient scientific evidence that is compelling & convincing enough for you to accept such drivel is true??

AchillesSinatra: "Do you actually think humans evolved from fish"

Yes, I do.

Do I think the processes by which it occurred are understood?

No, I don't.

AchillesSinatra: "Have you seen sufficient scientific evidence that is compelling & convincing enough for you to accept such drivel is true??"

Yes, I have.

zeffur: re: "AchillesSinatra: "Have you seen sufficient scientific evidence that is compelling & convincing enough for you to accept such drivel is true??"

Yes, I have."

Where's the compelling & convincing scientific evidence & cogent explanation that justifies such a belief is warranted??

AchillesSinatra: You know, I find it interesting to make a comparison with language "evolution", if we can call it that.

The linguistic changes that happen in our own all too brief lifetime are barely perceptible.

But try reading old English, Beowulf say.

In the space of, er, fifty generations (you do the math) what was written then is almost entirely incomprehensible to us today.

Kinda startling how fast stuff can happen without us noticing, eh?

zeffur: Where's the compelling & convincing scientific evidence & cogent explanation that justifies such a belief is warranted??

The change in English is not the same thing as the fairytale myth of evolution.

AchillesSinatra: "Where's the compelling & convincing scientific evidence & cogent explanation that justifies such a belief is warranted??"

The fossil record is quite sufficient for me (and never mind all the other putative evidence).

I'd say you'd have to have bats in the belfry to deny that radical change has occurred in morphology.

AchillesSinatra: "The change in English is not the same thing as the fairytale myth of evolution."

It's an analogy, and like all analogies, it is imperfect.

The point to be made is: stuff can change pretty radically and pretty quickly (on the grand scheme of things) without any particular individual cognizing it.

zeffur: There are no transitional fossils for dinosaurs. No transitional fossils for humankind (extinct chimps aren't proof they are ancestors of mankind). The fossil record has lots of variation within each kind, so it can't be used as a reliable indicator of evolution--which is why evolutioners don't use it in that way anymore. They've even given up on natural selection & adaptation claims for evolution because they've realized it isn't sufficient to support their rubbish beliefs.

Just look at how many variations of human bones are possible today--runts, dwarfs, giants, bone diseases, genetic defects that make some people's bones flexible & odd shaped, etc. For the same reasons, fossils aren't a reliable indicator of evolution.

The fossil record also shows whole complexed creatures without any transitional fossils. You can't be serious invoking that as a reasonable justification for accepting evoution as valid in any way. There are WAY too many discrepancies to consider the fossil record as sound reasoning FOR evolution--if anything it strongly demonstrates AGAINST evolution being valid/true.

AchillesSinatra: To that I'd say: yes, the gaps in the fossil record are conspicuous and salient.

As far as I can discern, the fossil record is a baffling mess that lends support to no particular theory of evolution (of which there are many).

zeffur: re: "As far as I can discern, the fossil record is a baffling mess that lends support to no particular theory of evolution (of which there are many)."

More accurately the fossil record is more strongly against evolution being a valid explanation of life form changes on earth. Even their tree of life concept has been proven false.

The fact is that there is ZERO credible justification for ANY evolution from one kind of creature morphing into any other kind of creature. All changes that we have seen are within a kind & never exceed the limits of genetic stasis.

AchillesSinatra: What we do see is lineage after lineage looking more and more like a modern day giraffe, or a modern day lemur, or a modern day human (pardon me).

How all this came about--the MECHANISM, if there is one-- remains a mystery, in my opinion.

A Darwinian one-liner of the form "The fittest survive" certainly doesn't explain it, at least for me.

It's not at all unlike your own true, but entirely unhelpful, truisms such as "the truth is that which is true".

zeffur: re: "AchillesSinatra: What we do see is lineage after lineage looking more and more like a modern day giraffe, or a modern day lemur, or a modern day human (pardon me)."

Where do you see that? Humans aren't evolving long necks. Giraffe aren't evolving into anything except giraffe. Lineage is within it's own genome by kind--there is ZERO credible evidence that any mechanism (mysterious or not) has ever caused a kind evolving into another kind.

Evolutioners have also never ever proven any sequence of mutations of any kind are responsible for kind-level evolution. The truth is the few genetic mutations that they have shown aren't even mutations. They are just differences within a kind's genome. Like some fruit flies having switch DNA code that turns on certain body structure genes at just the right time to make wing spots on some fruit flies & not on others. They claim it is a mutation--but, really it is just a variation. They don't even know what triggers it to switch on & off--yet they just make a bogus statement that it is a mutation so they can pretend that it is one of many assumed mutations that have accumulated & been passed on to descendents to ultimately result in kind-level changes. It's all totally unsupported scientifically--hence, not science--but, actually pseudoscience to promote their beliefs & to get further funding.