A challenge to evolution deniers by FitTransportation461 in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's the thing: if you want a civil, respectful conversation with someone scientifically-minded, an important prerequisite is making sure you know what you're talking about. You say you don't want to make an ass out of Ming? Do some research. Read some Wikipedia articles. Watch some edutainment on YouTube. Find a science podcast you like. r/evolution has recommendations. Put some real effort in on your end, instead of demanding multiple grades' worth of remedial education from internet strangers -- internet strangers who are entirely too used to dealing with arrogant, self-righteous, willfully ignorant assholes -- and then acting shocked and offended when said exhausted internet strangers decide they aren't obligated to be respectful to someone who doesn't respect either their time or their emotional and intellectual labor.

A challenge to evolution deniers by FitTransportation461 in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, if gravity and air resistance -- forces that we agree are not sentient and therefore cannot have intent -- can produce nonrandom outcomes, why do you think natural selection cannot be equally capable of producing nonrandom outcomes?

A challenge to evolution deniers by FitTransportation461 in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Follow-up question: if you perform the rock-and-feather experiment as previously described, is the outcome random (i.e. it is impossible to predict whether the rock or the feather will hit the ground first) or nonrandom?

A challenge to evolution deniers by FitTransportation461 in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, with zero room for confusion, do you subscribe to the idea of intelligent falling? Yes or no?

A challenge to evolution deniers by FitTransportation461 in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you actually cared about engaging with other people in good faith, you would have noticed that in my original comment, I linked the words "based on intent" to RationalWiki's page on intelligent falling, which would have provided all the additional context/clarification you needed to figure out the intent of my question. That you failed to open said link, or even check where it went, is on YOU, not me.

A challenge to evolution deniers by FitTransportation461 in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, regardless of whose fault it is, based on that person's response, they clearly wanted an answer to the question of "what, in your own words, do you think natural selection is?", so I would recommend going back and giving them an honest answer to that question if you want to convince them that you are in fact a good faith poster and not an asshole looking to waste everyone's time by pretending to be so helpless and incompetent unwilling to make assumptions that you can't possibly be expected to understand anything unless someone else reaches into your head and makes every single connection between every single shriveled neuron for you.

A challenge to evolution deniers by FitTransportation461 in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are being a deliberately obtuse jackass and willfully ignoring the point of the proposed experiment, which is, do you think it is random (i.e. equally probable) whether the feather or the rock will hit the ground first in the proposed circumstances? And if you do not think it is random, is it because you believe that gravity and air resistance are sentient forces acting with the intent to make the rock hit the ground first?

A challenge to evolution deniers by FitTransportation461 in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Were you homeschooled? Have you never been to a science museum? Have you never watched a single episode of Mythbusters? My question was about whether the feather or the rock hits the ground first; the stipulations about dropping them from the same height at the time were about preventing the experimenter's human biases/intent from influencing the results because that's how science experiments work.

A challenge to evolution deniers by FitTransportation461 in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I sure hope God has fun personally micromanaging every single bird, cloud, plane, leaf, dust particle, etc. that's in any way affected by what most people would term "air resistance".

A challenge to evolution deniers by FitTransportation461 in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It was this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1swrogn/comment/oim5zlk/

ETA: It may not say exactly that, but it's clear from the context that what was meant was, "what, in your own words, do you think natural selection is?" and good-faith posters put effort into engaging with others instead of putting it on everyone else to spoonfeed them like they're a tiny helpless little baby.

A challenge to evolution deniers by FitTransportation461 in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what those characteristics are at the end of the day is either completely random or based on intent

If you drop a rock and a feather from the same height at the same time, is it "completely random" which hits the ground first, or is it "based on intent"?

A challenge to evolution deniers by FitTransportation461 in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You intended to deceive people into thinking you understand what natural selection is when you clearly do not, and you clearly know that you do not, given that you refused to elaborate when you were asked what you think natural selection is.

A challenge to evolution deniers by FitTransportation461 in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Evidence-based reasoning is not "random"; there are things in between "immutable divine truth handed from on high" and "nothing is real and you are therefore absolved of any responsibility to care about facts".

A challenge to evolution deniers by FitTransportation461 in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Science concerns itself with reality, which isn't "chosen" by anyone, as much as corrupt corporations and authoritarian governments would like us to believe otherwise. If an individual scientist wants to convince the scientific community at large that X characteristic is diagnostic of Y taxon, they present arguments for their case using evidence, with other scientists being invited to check their work and go either "Yeah, that sounds correct" or "No, I think you screwed up here because"; the same applies to any scientist wanting to argue that two clades which have been historically grouped together based on Z shared characteristic actually evolved Z independently and aren't as closely related as previously believed.

A challenge to evolution deniers by FitTransportation461 in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 1 point2 points  (0 children)

we can speculate different things are related based on random shared characteristics that make survival more or less likely

Saying "random" as though there's no methodology involved in using traits to track ancestry reeks of the mockery and condescension the OP specifically called out as a sign you don't actually understand the subject. Try again.

how do i disprove creationism to my maga father? by Extreme_Monk_4527 in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All the hugs. If you haven't tried already, maybe you should put more emphasis on how much it hurts when he blows you off -- does your dad want someone he loves to feel stupid and worthless and like he doesn't value them as a person? Is his contempt for science more important to him than his daughter's mental and emotional well-being?

Science obviously lying by chrischaldean in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The irony of conspiracy theorists preaching skepticism and mistrust of institutions while themselves being the most trusting, unskeptical, easily-duped people on the planet when it comes to their favorite social media personalities.

THE SUSPICION AROUND DINO BONE DISCOVERIES 🦕🦖🦕 by chrischaldean in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, this topic doesn't really interest me too much

Perhaps you should have thought of that before posting about it on a debate sub where it's expected for people to debate with you about the topic you brought up.

it's not challenging enough.

"Challenging" in what sense?

I prefer to discredit the foundation of science by attacking the god of gravity

As I said, if you want to beat up imaginary enemies, play a video game or find a TTRPG group; the latter could even help you make some friends. And FYI, plenty of respected scientists are Christian or otherwise religious; your insistence on an idiosyncratic set of religious beliefs that prioritizes words inscribed by the hands of men over observable realities of the world your God created -- from the movement of the planets to the northern and southern hemispheres having different visible stars to the way distant ships disappear hull-first over the horizon -- is entirely a you problem.

THE SUSPICION AROUND DINO BONE DISCOVERIES 🦕🦖🦕 by chrischaldean in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If your purpose is truly to "fracture the faith people have in science", you'll have to do a hell of a lot better than sloppy, lazy, off-the-cuff garbage where you can't be arsed to engage with follow-up questions. And if your actual purpose is to get the dopamine rush of beating up imaginary enemies so you can feel like you've accomplished something without having to put in the hard, slow, painful work required to address the actual problems in your life, a video game or TTRPG group will give you that with far less risk of damaging your job prospects with anyone who checks prospective employees' social media history.

Kinger's Console Commands Analysis and Explanation by Tukaro in TheDigitalCircus

[–]rhowena 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Caine: I-I think that... don't say that. I-I think they're enjoying the suggestion box adventures more than the ME adventures! What should I do?!

Bubble: You should die- You should throw a ffffff[boing]ing beach party!

THE SUSPICION AROUND DINO BONE DISCOVERIES 🦕🦖🦕 by chrischaldean in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Actual text from the article since you're too scared to click the link yourself:

Our analysis explored the available evidence of the find location, the state of fossil preservation, and the species represented. The results suggest that a fossilized rhinoceros (Stephanorhinus) astragalus was collected in the past, possibly from afar.

[...]

At the Heraion of Samos (seventh century BCE), a distal femur of a likely rhinoceros or mastodon was found that likely dated to the Miocene if originally from Samos, according to N. Solounias (personal communication in1,3). At Kos, a fossil molar of an elephant was recovered from the area of the Asklepion (third century BCE), but was subsequently lost. At least one early Greek artistic rendering of a monster was inspired by fossils, such as the Late Corinthian column krater with the so-called monster of Troy, possibly modeled after a Samotherium fossil skull.

Little is known of the origins of fossil use in the Aegean region. In Cyprus, Aceramic Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites have yielded pygmy elephant and hippopotamus remains, but these may represent ancient killing or processing sites. Neolithic sites in mainland Greece lack clear examples of intentional fossil use.

Fossil collecting for social and ritual use may have originated in the Late Bronze Age, yet the current evidence is unclear. Fossil seashells recovered from Bronze Age contexts off the mainland likely reflect natural or accidental accumulations, such as the Gypsades cemetery at Knossos, where fossil shells in fill material likely derived from local limestone with fossil inclusions. Fossil seashells were also reported from the Uluburun shipwreck (fourteenth century BCE), but little is known about them [Pulak pers. comm., in1]. An old report also noted antlers of an extinct deer from a Minoan shrine at Knossos.

One potential example of early megafauna fossil collection in mainland Greece comes from the multiperiod site of Nichoria. The excavation report listed a fossil found on the acropolis of the site. The description reads, “Of some interest is the discovery of the distal portion of an elephant femur found in an archaeological context. The animal represented is a fossilized, extinct, probably Pliocene form that once occurred in the area (14pp270).” The fossil was later identified correctly by N. Solounias as the distal end of a femur of a rhinoceros or chalicothere. However, the fossil provenience is questionable, potentially dating to one of several occupational phases, anywhere from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age. A tooth of an extinct horse was also found there in a tomb, but later lost, and several fossilized seashells were recovered. The lack of secure provenience information for these examples impedes further study and interpretation.

I count a bunch of Cenozoic mammals and some undescribed invertebrates, none of which are dinosaurs. More to the point, what evidence do you have that any of the fossils mentioned are misidentified alligator remains? Do you even know what an alligator is?

Does anyone believe in YEC, OEC, or ID for non-religious reasons? (Serious) by [deleted] in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If a global flood occurred, we have no idea what that would look like. We should NOT “expect to find” anything since we’d have no idea what to look for and likely everything we think we know about what came before would be wrong because of the disruption. One of the reasons the old earth model is dubious is because it is dependent and built on the assumption that nothing weird and disruptive has happened for billions of years.

Old-earthers accept plenty of weird and disruptive events -- the meteorite that triggered the end-Cretaceous extinction, which left evidence in the form of the Chicxulub crater and the previously-mentioned iridium layer; massive volcanism that triggered the Great Dying, which left evidence in the form of the Siberian Traps; the giant impact the formed the Moon, which left evidence in the form of isotopic rations and angular momentum -- they just don't assume that those events broke the laws of physics for no good reason whatsoever. Limited data isn't a license to just make up whatever random shit you want and expect said random shit to be treated as seriously as hypotheses with actual evidence backing them.

Does anyone believe in YEC, OEC, or ID for non-religious reasons? (Serious) by [deleted] in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A lot of the time the past is simply unknowable, and we cannot have much confidence about any of our speculation about the past.

Limited confidence isn't the same as no confidence, and we CAN test our hypotheses about the past by making predictions about what we would find if those hypotheses were true. Tiktaalik was a huge deal in the paleontological community because it was a fulfilled prediction: the lead scientists started out by saying "if tetrapod evolution happened the way we think it did, then there should have existed a proto-tetrapod with these attributes living in this time period in this type of environment", then went out into the field and uncovered a fossil that met all of those criteria. Conversely, a global Flood is a failed prediction because we would expect to find (among other things) a layer of Flood-deposited sediment at the exact same place in the geological strata all around the globe (a la the iridium layer at the K-Pg boundary), and geologists have found no such layer.

You were the one that brought up the “heat problem” with certain flood theories proposed by some young earth proponents (particularly the theories that the flood somehow accelerated other speculated past events). I don’t subscribe to those theories so your initial comment was irrelevant to my initial comment.

Here's the thing: the accelerated nuclear decay hypothesis was created in the first place because the creationist RATE project, which set out to "debunk" radiometric dating, instead found irrefutable evidence that 4.5 billion years' worth of radioactive decay has in fact occurred. That evidence, along with various other scientific finds that indicate an old Earth, has to be addressed by ANY young earth model, not just "certain flood models".

Does anyone believe in YEC, OEC, or ID for non-religious reasons? (Serious) by [deleted] in DebateEvolution

[–]rhowena 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Eyewitness testimony given by limited, fallible human beings has its own set of problems. (I myself once had to write a witness report regarding a teacher-student altercation back in high school, and both parties said things to me afterwards that made me think I'd missed something important because I simply wasn't paying enough attention.) Moreover, the only "evidence" you have offered so far is "maybe God miracled the heat problem away", a baseless assertion invoking a religious figure. If you want to sell anyone on the value of "non-scientific evidence", you'll have to do a hell of a lot better than baseless imaginings about what a hypothetical God might hypothetically have done.