THE Evolution Thread

[DLH]

Internet Rando Admits He Started Evolution Thread Not to Learn Anything Because He Doesn’t Care and Did You See My Offer of Bible Study?

 

[DLH]

 

[DLH]

This is good, I made it in time for the owning credits.

I love these old movies. I can guess the dialogue without having seen it before.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Internet Rando Admits He Started Evolution Thread Not to Learn Anything Because He Doesn’t Care and Did You See My Offer of Bible Study?

I watched the video. Pure click bait. At no point is evolution "shredded". Instead, you have a narrator who seems to be an inerrantist, and who simply presents what any standard "Sinner's Prayer" tract or Chick comic gives you. "I believe the Bible because it is God's word, and it says so right in the Bible." This guy would recoil from some of the statements you have made about the Bible, DLH.

 

[pood]

This is good, I made it in time for the owning credits.

I love these old movies. I can guess the dialogue without having seen it before.

The “missing link” is a myth supported by silly babbling creationist ninnies, a deliberate caricature of correct evolutionary theory,

 

[pood]

Moronic videos created by con artists and imbeciles — nice content provision, DLH. It suits you perfectly.

 

[NoHolyCows]

So no — this isn’t about whether I can show you where change happened.
This is about the fact that I already did —
and you told us it wouldn’t matter if I showed you ten thousand more.
And with that, you disqualified yourself.

Stop making this about me and your presentation will improve by 100%

Now let’s get to your demand:

“Show me where it became something else — not implied, but demonstrated.”

Right. Show me. Not based upon your assumptions, but observations.

See, what you really need to do for my purpose is show me that God didn't create this thing just as it is rather than show me that you think it "transitioned" or whatever else.

I'll tell you one of the reasons that it is important. The Bible says and people think that Jesus died on a cross. That he went to hell. You understand? What one person says the cross and hell is might not be what another says. The Bible may use the word cross or hell but what does that mean? I can tell you Jesus died on the cross and went to hell but what does it mean? Can I assume that or have I observed it? All the leading Biblical scholars may think that but that doesn't mean anything to me. I may consider what they say but how does it hold up with my own examination?

The only way you can do that in a way that I will accept is to show me. What did it become? Because my position is that evolution means change and it can't change into something else.

You say, “Stop making this about me,” but this has always been about you — and your refusal to engage honestly. You issued a challenge, asked for evidence, and every time that evidence showed up, you shifted the goalposts. Now you’re pretending the problem is how it’s presented — not the fact that your position doesn’t allow any answer to count.

You asked, “What did it become?” I answered. Tiktaalik had scales and fins like a fish, but also lungs, a neck, and wrist bones — features of land vertebrates. That’s not theory. That’s fossilized anatomy. It bridges two major groups your theology claims were created separately. That’s the definition of a transition. That is change into something else — over time, across generations, through observed mechanisms.

Now you’re retreating to, “Maybe God just made it that way.” That’s not a rebuttal. That’s a refusal. If you’re going to dismiss every form of physical evidence by appealing to divine fiat, then there’s nothing you’ll ever accept. And let’s be real — you already admitted that: “It doesn’t matter what science says. Ever.” That’s not confidence. That’s intellectual surrender.

Yes — I know you’re a Jehovah’s Witness. And on some things, I agree with you. Staurós as an upright stake? Makes sense. Hades and Gehenna referring to the grave and destruction, not fiery torment? I agree. You’re right to challenge traditions that added meanings not found in the original text.

But that’s not relevant here — because evolution isn’t a doctrinal debate. It’s an evidence-based reality. And here, you’re not challenging false tradition. You’re rejecting testable, observable, physical facts because they don’t align with a belief system that’s been insulated against revision.

You say evolution means nothing can “become something else.”
But the data — fossils, genetics, developmental biology — says otherwise.
You don’t get to wave that away by pretending “kind” is some untouchable, undefined category that no evidence can ever reach.

You’re not defending truth.
You’re defending a wall.
And when the evidence showed up at the gate,
you locked it —
and called that faith.

But it’s not faith. It’s fear of letting go.
And until you face that, this won’t be a discussion.
It’ll just be another performance — where the outcome was rigged from the start.

NHC

 

[pood]

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory

 

[ideologyhunter]

Jimmy Fallon on SNL's Weekend Update, Feb. 2004:
This week Georgia's Board of Education approved a plan that allows teachers to keep using the word evolution when teaching biology. Though, as a compromise, dinosaurs are now called 'Jesus horses'.

 

[pood]

BREAKING NEWS
Evolution Denier Confuses Tiktaalik with TikTok

IIDB (Internet News Service) — An evolution denier confused the transitional fossil Tiktaalik with the video-sharing app TikTok late Friday, sources confirmed.

“See, what you really need to do for my purpose is show me that God didn't create this thing just as it is rather than show me that you think it ‘transitioned’ from YouTube or Instagram or whatever,” the evolution denier, DLH, said.

Informed sources said the evolution denier has repeatedly argued that God created the internet, apps, smart phones and other high technology just as they are, without any technological advancement or boring scientists involved at all. Sources confirmed he believes that his computer was conjured into being by Jehovah after he prayed really, really hard for it.

After Jehovah granted his prayer, he immediately used his new-found techbro prowess to post a slew of idiotic videos totally misrepresenting evolutionary theory.

“What’s really freaking weird is that the discussion is supposed to be about biological evolution and not high-tech,” E. Mota Kahn, an internet tracker with the RAND corporation, noted. “Nobody in their right mind argues that TikTok was a transitional form between aquatic animals and land-dwelling vertebrates, for fuck sake.”

 

[steve_bank]

For DLH it is all about 'I & Me'

I I am right ab0ut evolution all atheists are wrong.
All atheists are out to get me.
All Christians are wrong about the bible and I am right.

A lonely frustrated guy. DLH versus the world.

 

[DLH]

Tiktaalik had scales and fins like a fish, but also lungs, a neck, and wrist bones — features of land vertebrates. That’s not theory. That’s fossilized anatomy.

Of course, the best source for information on fossils can be found here. My skepticism from the start of this thread and many others on other forums has been misrepresentation. For example, the images from Wikipedia. I don't see much there.


By Eduard Solà - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22100994

Becomes


By Nobu Tamura email:nobu.tamura@yahoo.com http://spinops.blogspot.com/ - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50429141

It bridges two major groups your theology claims were created separately.

Maybe you don't understand what theology is?

That’s the definition of a transition. That is change into something else — over time, across generations, through observed mechanisms.

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please? A picture of some old rocks changes into an artists rendetion of a squirrell monkey fish? That's hyperbolic but put simply, I don't see that. Of course I'm not a scientist.

Now you’re retreating to, “Maybe God just made it that way.” That’s not a rebuttal.

Correct.

That’s a refusal. If you’re going to dismiss every form of physical evidence by appealing to divine fiat, then there’s nothing you’ll ever accept. And let’s be real — you already admitted that: “It doesn’t matter what science says. Ever.” That’s not confidence. That’s intellectual surrender.

That is practical reality. If you say to me that God just made it that way I would say, maybe, maybe not. If you said it obviously evolved I would say the same thing. It doesn't matter to me either way. They are both faith. Neither matters to me much.

Yes — I know you’re a Jehovah’s Witness.

Well, you see, that is problematic because you know that as well as you know the creature you're referring to evolved and the fact is I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. Never have been, never will be. That doesn't establish the veracity of your case, it just demonstrates your infalibility and willingness to assume something is true without evidence.

And on some things, I agree with you. Staurós as an upright stake? Makes sense. Hades and Gehenna referring to the grave and destruction, not fiery torment? I agree. You’re right to challenge traditions that added meanings not found in the original text.

That's fine, and you are right to challenge my perspective on evolution. But you still haven't shown me what I requested so long ago.

But that’s not relevant here — because evolution isn’t a doctrinal debate. It’s an evidence-based reality. And here, you’re not challenging false tradition. You’re rejecting testable, observable, physical facts because they don’t align with a belief system that’s been insulated against revision.

Partly wrong again. The outcome of our discussion is possibly that I learn the Tiktaalik evolved but that isn't a theological matter and it isn't at all significant to my faith. In the Wikipedia article on the Tiktaalik you see the evolution of opinion regarding among other things, discovery by Holy Cross Mountain. There's certainly nothing wrong with dispute but does the name suggest a similar rejection based upon the same inaccurate claim you've classified me with? Namely that theology Trumps evidence-based "reality."

You say evolution means nothing can “become something else.”

I did? Maybe some clarification? A typo?

But the data — fossils, genetics, developmental biology — says otherwise.

Presumably.

You don’t get to wave that away by pretending “kind” is some untouchable, undefined category that no evidence can ever reach.

All you have to do is show me the creature and what it changed into rather than give me abstract data and insist I conclude what you prescribe.

You’re not defending truth.
You’re defending a wall.

I'm not defending anything.

And when the evidence showed up at the gate,
you locked it —
and called that faith.

Because you can't show me. You haven't observed it. You only believe it. Nothing else matters. No amount of data can change that. Faith isn't a derogatory term. There's nothing wrong with your own faith on this matter until you insist it is irrefutable fact,

But it’s not faith. It’s fear of letting go.

What are you afraid of letting go?

And until you face that, this won’t be a discussion.

Until I face the fact that you are irefutably wrong this won't be a discussion? Maybe that's what's wrong.

It’ll just be another performance — where the outcome was rigged from the start.

Perhaps you overestimate my intent.

 

[DLH]

Jimmy Fallon on SNL's Weekend Update, Feb. 2004:
This week Georgia's Board of Education approved a plan that allows teachers to keep using the word evolution when teaching biology. Though, as a compromise, dinosaurs are now called 'Jesus horses'.

Though I see the humor in the name Jesus horses I think a more accurate nomenclature would be big chicken. Just as ridiculous but allegedly more scientifically accurate. Dinosaur 2.0 isn't your grandpa's dinosaur. Remember all those drawings? Boy they were so cool, huh? Before I went to school I taught myself to read with this book:



I don't think I would have been so easily impressed if a more accurate and current illustration were given. I want my dinosaur to roar not make a squaking sound.

 

[steve_bank]

Regardless of whatever inconsistencies may be in the fossil record, one thing is certain. Fossils discount biblical creationism.

The Ark o course. And no human fossils or evidence of human habitation coincident with dinosaurs.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Tiktaalik had scales and fins like a fish, but also lungs, a neck, and wrist bones — features of land vertebrates. That’s not theory. That’s fossilized anatomy.

Of course, the best source for information on fossils can be found here. My skepticism from the start of this thread and many others on other forums has been misrepresentation. For example, the images from Wikipedia. I don't see much there.

View attachment 50122
By Eduard Solà - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22100994

Becomes

View attachment 50121
By Nobu Tamura email:nobu.tamura@yahoo.com http://spinops.blogspot.com/ - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50429141

It bridges two major groups your theology claims were created separately.

Maybe you don't understand what theology is?

That’s the definition of a transition. That is change into something else — over time, across generations, through observed mechanisms.

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please? A picture of some old rocks changes into an artists rendetion of a squirrell monkey fish? That's hyperbolic but put simply, I don't see that. Of course I'm not a scientist.

Now you’re retreating to, “Maybe God just made it that way.” That’s not a rebuttal.

Correct.

That’s a refusal. If you’re going to dismiss every form of physical evidence by appealing to divine fiat, then there’s nothing you’ll ever accept. And let’s be real — you already admitted that: “It doesn’t matter what science says. Ever.” That’s not confidence. That’s intellectual surrender.

That is practical reality. If you say to me that God just made it that way I would say, maybe, maybe not. If you said it obviously evolved I would say the same thing. It doesn't matter to me either way. They are both faith. Neither matters to me much.

Yes — I know you’re a Jehovah’s Witness.

Well, you see, that is problematic because you know that as well as you know the creature you're referring to evolved and the fact is I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. Never have been, never will be. That doesn't establish the veracity of your case, it just demonstrates your infalibility and willingness to assume something is true without evidence.

And on some things, I agree with you. Staurós as an upright stake? Makes sense. Hades and Gehenna referring to the grave and destruction, not fiery torment? I agree. You’re right to challenge traditions that added meanings not found in the original text.

That's fine, and you are right to challenge my perspective on evolution. But you still haven't shown me what I requested so long ago.

But that’s not relevant here — because evolution isn’t a doctrinal debate. It’s an evidence-based reality. And here, you’re not challenging false tradition. You’re rejecting testable, observable, physical facts because they don’t align with a belief system that’s been insulated against revision.

Partly wrong again. The outcome of our discussion is possibly that I learn the Tiktaalik evolved but that isn't a theological matter and it isn't at all significant to my faith. In the Wikipedia article on the Tiktaalik you see the evolution of opinion regarding among other things, discovery by Holy Cross Mountain. There's certainly nothing wrong with dispute but does the name suggest a similar rejection based upon the same inaccurate claim you've classified me with? Namely that theology Trumps evidence-based "reality."

You say evolution means nothing can “become something else.”

I did? Maybe some clarification? A typo?

But the data — fossils, genetics, developmental biology — says otherwise.

Presumably.

You don’t get to wave that away by pretending “kind” is some untouchable, undefined category that no evidence can ever reach.

All you have to do is show me the creature and what it changed into rather than give me abstract data and insist I conclude what you prescribe.

You’re not defending truth.
You’re defending a wall.

I'm not defending anything.

And when the evidence showed up at the gate,
you locked it —
and called that faith.

Because you can't show me. You haven't observed it. You only believe it. Nothing else matters. No amount of data can change that. Faith isn't a derogatory term. There's nothing wrong with your own faith on this matter until you insist it is irrefutable fact,

But it’s not faith. It’s fear of letting go.

What are you afraid of letting go?

And until you face that, this won’t be a discussion.

Until I face the fact that you are irefutably wrong this won't be a discussion? Maybe that's what's wrong.

It’ll just be another performance — where the outcome was rigged from the start.

Perhaps you overestimate my intent.

You say your skepticism is rooted in “misrepresentation.” But the only thing being misrepresented here is your posture of neutrality. You claim to be asking honest questions, but every time a direct answer is given, you shift the target. You demand “observable evidence,” then dismiss it all as “faith.” That’s not critical inquiry — that’s a built-in excuse to reject everything that makes you uncomfortable.

You shrugged off Tiktaalik by saying, “I don’t see much there,” referring to Wikipedia images. But the evidence isn’t in the drawings — it’s in the fossil itself: fins and scales like a fish, but also lungs, a neck, and weight-bearing limbs like a tetrapod. It’s a transitional species with precisely the features evolutionary theory predicted — found in exactly the rock layer it predicted. That’s not abstract. That’s anatomy, geology, and empirical data converging — and you just dismissed it with, “Maybe, maybe not.” That’s not skepticism. That’s indifference masquerading as depth.

Then you asked, “What did it become?” and when shown the answer, you changed the rules: “Show me where it became something else — not where it looks like it did.” You demand change, then reject all transitional evidence because you’ve pre-decided that any appearance of transition is just “assumption.” This is rhetorical insulation — not a search for truth.

You say, “I’m not a Jehovah’s Witness.” But if you’re not, then what distinguishes you from one? You hold to their positions on the staurós (the stake, not a cross), on hell (as Hades or Gehenna — the grave, not eternal torment), and you quote their literature constantly. So if you’re not affiliated, then clarify what separates your beliefs from theirs — because right now, by content and method, you’re indistinguishable from one.

You say, “I’m not defending anything.” But every word you’ve written is a defense — not of a position built on evidence, but of a belief structure that won’t allow evidence in. When the data arrives, you call it speculation. When transitions are shown, you say they “don’t matter.” When your reasoning is challenged, you ask, “What are you afraid of letting go?” But the real question is — what are you?

I’ve changed my views before. You haven’t demonstrated the ability to question yours. You walked into this thread asking to be shown where evolution contradicts the Bible — and you were shown. In fossils. In genetics. In anatomy. In your own book’s conflicting creation accounts.

And what was your response?

“That’s just faith.”
“That’s just opinion.”
“It doesn’t matter to me either way.”

You’re not debating. You’re defending a preloaded verdict. And now that the verdict has been exposed — not just to me, but to every reader watching — you’re scrambling to make the debate about tone, assumptions, or intent. But it’s too late.

You asked for a contradiction. You got it.
You asked for change. You got it.
You asked for evidence. You got it.

And now, cornered, all you’ve got left is: “None of it matters.”

Which means the debate is over.
Not because it was lost —
But because you never intended to let it be won.

NHC

 

[DLH]

Regardless of whatever inconsistencies may be in the fossil record, one thing is certain. Fossils discount biblical creationism.

Well, that's all that matters, then. Sign me up.

Wait a minute, I didn't fall for any bullshit religion and that's what evolution is.

The Ark o course. And no human fossils or evidence of human habitation coincident with dinosaurs.

I read the book. Did you miss the image above. There the kid is on the damn thing. The art is even better than the later ones from school showing cave men stooped over a fire in animal skins. Barney Rubble and Fred Flinstone.

Ha, ha, ha! What a joke.

 

[steve_bank]

DLH

You might say sconce is religion-like for some.

Ignorant of science a blind faith that terminology works with no clue as to why. Perhaps like yourself.

Do podcasts or videos. Get a podium and lectern, put on a suit, and preach your ideas. You can do it in your living room, hang drapes for a backdrop.

Call it 'The True Bible with your name', every Sunday morning.

You will most likely develop a following of some kind if you do it right. Play up the anti atheist theme, many will like that.

Who knows, you may end up with a mega church.

Joel Osteen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Billy Graham started out as a poor itinerant revivalist preacher and found fame and fortune.

 

[DLH]

DLH

You might say sconce is religion-like for some.

Ignorant of science a blind faith that terminology works with no clue as to why. Perhaps like yourself.

Do podcasts or videos. Get a podium and lectern, put on a suit, and preach your ideas. You can do it in your living room, hang drapes for a backdrop.

Call it 'The True Bible with your name', every Sunday morning.

You will most likely develop a following of some kind if you do it right. Play up the anti atheist theme, many will like that.

Who knows, you may end up with a mega church.

Billy Graham started out as a poor itinerant revivalist preacher and found fame and fortune.

Maybe you should find something to do with your time? Something other than being obsessed with what I do with my time?

 

[steve_bank]

Well DLH, I am writing engineering tutorials. I just furnished one on using the Fast Fourier Transform to convolve a signal with a transfer function. I will be submitting to a technical trade joi8rnal. Somersetting that may be useful to others.

I was always multitasking when I was working, juggling multiple things. I keep up posting while I work.

Obsessed? You sad you post your anti atheist nonsense exclusivity on atheist forums. I'd call that an obsession.

Like I said, star a podcast or video series on your ideas.

You know what they say, Yahweh helps those that helps themselves.

 

[DLH]

Well DLH, I am writing engineering tutorials. I just furnished one on using the Fast Fourier Transform to convolve a signal with a transfer function. I will be submitting to a technical trade joi8rnal. Somersetting that may be useful to others.

I was always multitasking when I was working, juggling multiple things. I keep up posting while I work.

Obsessed? You sad you post your anti atheist nonsense exclusivity on atheist forums. I'd call that an obsession.

I post exclusively on atheist formums because I'm not interested in anything anyone else says.

Like I said, star a podcast or video series on your ideas.

Not interested. Anyway, you only suggest it to offend me, which is probably the most interesting thing about it.

You know what they say, Yahweh helps those that helps themselves.

Like I said above, I'm not interested in what others say.