It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ... Full Story

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107773 Jan 16, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Why KAB, the first that always comes to mind is the two different versions of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. The Bible immediately starts with these two similar but contradictory versions of creation and goes down hill from there. I discovered this independently when I was young and as I grew older discovered it was known for hundreds of years prior to my existence. Biblical scholars have shown even to the point of using specialized software that they are different and were written by different authors. Another is the population of Nod that Cain was able to marry into. Where did they come from? How about all the different stories of Christ's resurection. The cast of characters changes with each telling. I am sure you will provide answers, but I doubt they will be anything I have encountered or found to be wanting.
So, no I don't presently believe in a literal translation of the Bible and that is not a conclusion without proof.
Cain=spear cannot be Nod= aimlessly wandering, Nod said to be east of eden.( Aimlessly wandering is though that is what he is said to do) Habel has various meanings.
They are considered to be twins since no intermediate pregnancy is told about their births. It seems Seth (recall Osiris myth) seems to be an addition to not make all humans effectively be the offspring of Cain.
But again nothing should be taken literal, but it pays to look at various interpretations of the stories and what can be learned or extrapolated.

Though not on the tax-payers expenses and all those kids never learning that the bible should for the most part not be taken literal. Jewish kids are tought that for every story they must try and come up with as many different interpretation it could allow.
This is seen as the true wisdom.

Christians will simply say that they see jesus allavro...oh and evil and satan.
And that would be it.
It's so dull!

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#107774 Jan 16, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
So you really want me to believe that humans evolved from non-humans, but you can't even tell be the difference between the two, nor when, how, or what caused it? You really want people to believe that?
That's a clever double bind.
If there isn't a smooth fossil succession, Creationists tell us that God created both species.
If there is a smooth fossil succession, Creationists demand a clear boundary.

Marksman, what time does day stop and night start?
At what age does a child change into an adult?
At how many degrees does the weather stop being cold and start being hot?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107775 Jan 16, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>So you really want me to believe that humans evolved from non-humans, but you can't even tell be the difference between the two, nor when, how, or what caused it? You really want people to believe that?
Excuse me but weren't you also partaking in evolution v. creation were this was discussed extensively.

So going on and on, with some weird notion that everyone must have very short memories and be just as desinterested in what others write as you display, is counterproductive.

So no we do not have to ( i posted the relevant studies i think a bloody well 6 times!) keep on repeating ourselves or even try to correct all the vile misinterpretations you ascribe to others.
That is shaitanic i.e. backstabbing by publicly portraying people in a false light. Spreading malicious rumour.

“A have offended, Brickie, Dark”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Blue, Suncore, Replay whoever

#107776 Jan 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
All of the subject areas you mention involve science. You can be sure they also include content which goes outside the bounds of true science. It's good that you are humble enough to acknowledge your weakness in the half-life realm. I encourage you to remember that things are not always what they seem. Unfortunately, not all "science" is true science, and I'm not referring only to fraud. Degrees of misuse and ignorance is a better characterization. Remember, scientists are actually just imperfect people too.
The book has not been shown to be inconsistent. If it has been, you will provide conclusive confirming data in response to this post, but you won't. Every document is subject to interpretation. That should not be confused with the notion that the interpretations are valid. That's where data prevails and saves the day once again. Interpretations can/should be tested to determine validity.
You're on your own with Maz, Markie, and the like. If the atmosphere becomes too non-conducive to progress, I will not remain.
I don't know what "true" science is I guess. Some sciences are more descriptive and others lend room for more experimentation. How would you do an experiment with plate tectonics for instance? Does being more descriptive in nature make a science not a "true" science? Classical taxonomy is highly descriptive. Are the contributions of taxonomy any less valuable especially in light of the keystone position taxonomy plays in biology?

A science like paleontology has actual evidence in the fossil record. It is broken because of the history of the earth, chemistry of fossilization, origin of the fossils, type of animal or plant and animal or palnt part, geography and so on. Is paleontology less of a science despite the fact that it can show a changing lineage of organisms from the prehistoric to the present based on those fossils, but they can't presently show certain events experimentally.

Based on past experience of your writing, I think that what you are calling "true" science is the science you accept that either fits your beliefs or has no negative impact on them. If it doesn't meet those criteria, then it is not "true" science. Science, fortunately doesn't care what you believe, or I believe or what a politician or preacher believes. The scientific method distills the toxin of belief out at as much as possible and the results are what they are. Interpretation, I agree, will vary, but there is self regulating mechanism to aid in dealing with that as well. It isn't perfect, but science has shown itself to be one of the best if not the best methods for describing the world around us. It is certainly less prone to the infection of bias, by its practitioners than religion has proven to be.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107777 Jan 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing in your characterization of Maz precludes the gradual accumulation of variations.
BTW, statistically, hasn't scientific experience been that most variations are detrimental?
Maz does not do gradual, it's all or nothing and both at the same time. What ever fits the mood or idea du jour.

Well have they.
Some study thus put some manova or whatever tool on the subjective experience described by scientists, that variations are detrimental.
Wel KAB not that i'm aware of.

I was just pointing out that mazhere is not consistent, except in calling people names, that is.
So in her case a bit more variation would not be considered detrimental by the subjective experience of the scientist here.
You pick any statistical tool and start calculating.

“A have offended, Brickie, Dark”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Blue, Suncore, Replay whoever

#107778 Jan 16, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Cain=spear cannot be Nod= aimlessly wandering, Nod said to be east of eden.( Aimlessly wandering is though that is what he is said to do) Habel has various meanings.
They are considered to be twins since no intermediate pregnancy is told about their births. It seems Seth (recall Osiris myth) seems to be an addition to not make all humans effectively be the offspring of Cain.
But again nothing should be taken literal, but it pays to look at various interpretations of the stories and what can be learned or extrapolated.
Though not on the tax-payers expenses and all those kids never learning that the bible should for the most part not be taken literal. Jewish kids are tought that for every story they must try and come up with as many different interpretation it could allow.
This is seen as the true wisdom.
Christians will simply say that they see jesus allavro...oh and evil and satan.
And that would be it.
It's so dull!
I agree. I have done some further reading on the subject including explanations as to where the people that Cain joined, came from. It isn't satifactory, but it is interesting.

Yeah, they see more evil than good and spend far too much time worrying about what others are doing with their genitals. That seems to be the result of repression and maybe some mental illness.

“A have offended, Brickie, Dark”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Blue, Suncore, Replay whoever

#107779 Jan 16, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a clever double bind.
If there isn't a smooth fossil succession, Creationists tell us that God created both species.
If there is a smooth fossil succession, Creationists demand a clear boundary.
Marksman, what time does day stop and night start?
At what age does a child change into an adult?
At how many degrees does the weather stop being cold and start being hot?
Those are some great questions. I will have to remember this and what Chimney1 wrote in response as well.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107780 Jan 16, 2013
Double binds, emotional ones particularly, are nasty. It makes people feel powerless c.q. learned helplessness.
Often observed in abused people.

The way out is to have choice, freewill to decide and having something to decide.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#107781 Jan 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, an assertion based on experience, personal as described, and observed. Besides, you described how your religious experience contributed to turning you against religion. If it was a "false religious" experience, such an outcome would hardly be unexpected.
Ah, "No True Scotsman." You're never one to pass up a chance to use poor reasoning and logical fallacies. Way to meet expectations, champ.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107782 Jan 16, 2013
To not entirely do dsicredit to KAB as if everything revolves around maz, that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_variatio...
neutral or detrimental but can later proof to have a beneficial effect.
In humans that is champion in doubling genes, by oncogenetic process steered by methylation, we find that on the whole such changes are neutral.
A propensity for neutrality.(studies somewhere on this board, probably in evo v crea. though i think i also posted it here.)
But that effect would also depend on hetero-or homozygotes. Some variations in the nuclei would be silent but the other part of the doubled gene, with overall the same function, continous the fuction.
Heterozygotism is usually percieved as having a better change against disease and parasites.
Usually more genetic variation i.e. mutation and less inbreeding guarantees a species to be more successful.
You could google : genetic variations detrimental.
And so make up your own mind and understand that it's not just superficial mazhere logic going : all mutations are bad.
There is a lot more to the issue.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107783 Jan 16, 2013
cont. for clarity. From an artivle on the Florida panther and declining population.

Over short time scales, genetic variation is important for a population's survival as well. For example, a genetically variable population is more resistant to pathogens and parasites. This occurs at two different levels. At an individual level, populations with high levels of genetic variation generally include many individuals who are heterozygous that is, they carry two different gene versions at important locations in the genome. Individuals with many heterozygous genes are less likely to be susceptible to diseases and parasites than are individuals with many genes that are homozygous (i.e., the individual carries two copies of the same gene version for a particular gene). That's because individuals that are heterozygous for genes involved in parasite and pathogen resistance have twice the chance of carrying the right gene version to resist the pathogen-of-the-day than do individuals homozygous for those genes. It's a bit like buying two tickets for a raffle instead of one. The more tickets you have, the more likely one of them will be a winner. The same reasoning applies at the population level. A genetically variable population is likely to include some individuals who happen to be genetically resistant to the disease or pest enabling the population to survive to the next generation, even if many individual animals die or become sick. For the Florida panthers, bringing in new blood increased heterozygosity, improving the health of individuals, and made the population less likely to be wiped out by a single disease or parasite.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#107784 Jan 16, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>You'd guess wrong. Never read it. Unlike you guys, I think for myself.
If you did, you'd not continue to use the same old canards and fallacies. So the next question is, why do you insist on lying?
KAB

Oxford, NC

#107785 Jan 16, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Any publications are peer-reviewed. And even before publication the actual conclusions and method are discussed thoroughly, which makes some peolple miss dead-lines.
The scientific process of pree-viewed scrutiniy insures that mistakes will be picked up on.
If nothing was done wrong in the method employed during the excavation of a fossil and dting methods but some mistake creeped in later use of the statistical method, that will be picked up on.
Science is a selfcorrecting proces.
That is why we do not throw tantrums or throw all research out of the window.
And usually we have read what led up to the conclusion.
If we find no fold we can quote it without any qualms.
To scrutinize data you must first understand it KAB.
You are lacking in that department, nevermind how much data we've thrown your way.
Let's just see how it goes next time someone from your side provides some data. I realize I may have quite a long wait for that.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#107786 Jan 16, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Just a funny reminder:
On the fifth day of Creation, we learn that God creates the fish of the sea and birds of the air. For this day, we made homemade bird feeders.(sic)
---
A day in the jewish i.e. hebrew story is no more than a day. Grammatically and by the fact of mentioning morning and evening. Since it was the intent to show just a week.
OEC are just evolutionists that try to reconcile myth with fact.
If nature is gods doing and paradigm (some churchfather made that statement that all now repeat without even knowing the origin.)then design belongs firmly in the realm of culture.
So a god of design is a cultural paradigm (yeah let's throw that word in everywhere.)
Ah well i could continue. i keep seeing the contradictions that christian creationists are apparently blind and deaf to.
So what's the "day" in Genesis 2? BTW, now we're considering data, although per usual not from your side.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#107787 Jan 16, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Why KAB, the first that always comes to mind is the two different versions of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. The Bible immediately starts with these two similar but contradictory versions of creation and goes down hill from there. I discovered this independently when I was young and as I grew older discovered it was known for hundreds of years prior to my existence. Biblical scholars have shown even to the point of using specialized software that they are different and were written by different authors. Another is the population of Nod that Cain was able to marry into. Where did they come from? How about all the different stories of Christ's resurection. The cast of characters changes with each telling. I am sure you will provide answers, but I doubt they will be anything I have encountered or found to be wanting.
So, no I don't presently believe in a literal translation of the Bible and that is not a conclusion without proof.
Generalized assertions are worthless. Provide Genesis 1 and 2 specifics. Cite a documentation law that reference to an event can only be made in one chapter. What specifically did you notice when you were young, chapter 1 to chapter 2 specific verse citation comparison. Give a specific verse contradiction pair. Please don't make the mistake of declaring word/phrase/sentence meanings which aren't linguistically/grammatically/c ontextually required. Once you provide your data, we will have something to scrutinize for validity (peer review, as it were).

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Iquique

#107788 Jan 16, 2013
In the fields of archaeology, paleontology, and paleoanthropology in the last 20 years or so the sciences have been able to trace Homo-sapiens to our very first appearance in the fossil record beginning around 200,000 years ago. DNA has recently backed this up, see the following websites. Of particular interest is the National Geographic genome study of over half a million people throughout the world.
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-0...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fos...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
KAB

Oxford, NC

#107789 Jan 16, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, yes, been through that a year or two back with you.
An individual fossil does not show its heredity.
However, a sequence of fossils showing a clearly discernible series of changes over time, a trend, show exactly what evolution predicts.
And ain't it just so grand that a new find like Austro. Sediba happens to fit into that trend, the sam one already established by
Austro. ardipithecus, afarensis,(sediba), h. habilis, h. erectus, h. heidelburgensis, h. sapiens archaic, and h. sapiens modern.
Better confirmation of evolution you couldn't ask for.
So that's the best evolution has to offer? Your answer is critical. I've been asking and waiting for a long time for your side to provide its best data.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#107790 Jan 16, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
So that's the best evolution has to offer? Your answer is critical. I've been asking and waiting for a long time for your side to provide its best data.
A bit like asking, "what's the best evidence that demonstrates OJ killed two people?" A single thing isn't generally enough to demonstrate something like that. But, the entirety of the evidence does. You can't look at a puzzle with a microscope and figure out what the whole thing looks like from that. But, you're insisting on taking that very methodology and applying it to the most heavily evidence-supported theory in all of science. If it allows us to make accurate predictions, then it works. If it didn't, it would be discarded. That's how science works. Overturning theories wins people Nobel Prizes, grants, global fame within the scientific community (possibly even beyond it), and huge clout.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#107791 Jan 16, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea what kind of experience it was, you pompous ass. There wasn't anything negative about it. I didn't 'turn against religion' as you put it. I simply found the differences between the ideals of the different faiths and the behavior of their members to be very hypocritical.
I also find biblical literalists to be a very silly lot.
I don't campaign against religion. I largely ignore it. It simply doesn't matter to me all that much. Unless someone starts spouting off their nonsense on a public forum.
So what religion did you not turn against?

Also, I probably have much the same view as you regarding Biblical literalists, depending on what you mean by that term.
KAB

Oxford, NC

#107792 Jan 16, 2013
Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
<quoted text>sorry... but the "BOOK" is a mythical superstition riddled with inconsistencies... as is all mythical superstitions... just saying
"Just saying" doesn't cut it. Specific data does. I notice you provided none.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 25 min ChristineM 117,307
Darwin on the rocks 1 hr Chimney1 81
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 3 hr Chimney1 653
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 6 hr MikeF 174,428
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? Sep 27 David M 2
New Fossil Reveals Multicellular Life Evolved 6... Sep 26 TedHOhio 8
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs SlowlyThen Took Off Sep 26 TedHOhio 2

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE