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

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

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 ...

Comments (Page 5,974)

Showing posts 119,461 - 119,480 of133,092
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121621
Sep 30, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is necessary that none be included, for them to disappear. Because as we have discussed, no established haps disappear under the rapid population growth scenario, and remember you were claiming that the new migrating group expanded while the old group died out. Do I also need to point out that for this to happen the new group would have to grow even faster than the general population growth too? Making disappearance of any haps present pretty much impossible.
<quoted text>
Look it up yourself. I am not going to ferret around doing ALL your homework for you. Just be aware that Samoan are established on their Islands for around 5000 years and seem to have migrated there from aboriginal populations in Taiwan or nearby. From Samoa they spread to NZ, Hawaii, and Easter Islands plus a lot in between. A remarkable series of migrations and the closest thing I could think of to the scenario YOU were trying to paint.
<quoted text>
Yes, but not in the required timeframes.
Using the calculations objectively (no prior expectation of when the migrations should occur), scientists have established approximate timeframes for multiple migrations. Such as the early separation of the San up to 100,000 years ago, the out of Africa split around 60,000 years (by my memory, might not be exact), then migrations since, all over the world. At least seven major incursions at different times just into Europe over a period of 40,000 years. Your attempts to squash more than 100,000 years of human migration patterns into 4500 years is no more feasible than when you started. I have even skewed the calculations in your favour as much as possible, and we still are not even close.
<quoted text>
KAB, in spite of the fact that I have confidence in existing scientific research and you do not, I am following the numbers as they emerge from my calculations. You are trying to the utmost to make the numbers conform to your preconceived bias.
We all know who is being objective here, and who is not. Perhaps you need to look that word up.
You write:
"We all know who is being objective here, and who is not. Perhaps you need to look that word up."

I'm sure you already know this, but it has been my longtime experience that a Jehovah's Witnesses entire life is colored by what they believe is the word of God (Jehovah) that they get from the Watchtower. They are really unable to be objective.

They are almost TOTALLY unable to go against that teaching because they are so brainwashed.

And whats so scary is they can act almost normal.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121622
Oct 1, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You write:
"We all know who is being objective here, and who is not. Perhaps you need to look that word up."
I'm sure you already know this, but it has been my longtime experience that a Jehovah's Witnesses entire life is colored by what they believe is the word of God (Jehovah) that they get from the Watchtower. They are really unable to be objective.
They are almost TOTALLY unable to go against that teaching because they are so brainwashed.
And whats so scary is they can act almost normal.
Good point. But we have to look at what is different between a process of non-brainwashed learning versus indoctrination and the differences are not always clear. KAB evidently believes he came to his conclusions based on examination of the data and reasoned consideration. Other cultists might tell you that they have received their wisdom from a route that is superior to reason and evidence. Its not easy to break through that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121623
Oct 1, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You write:
"We all know who is being objective here, and who is not. Perhaps you need to look that word up."
I'm sure you already know this, but it has been my longtime experience that a Jehovah's Witnesses entire life is colored by what they believe is the word of God (Jehovah) that they get from the Watchtower. They are really unable to be objective.
They are almost TOTALLY unable to go against that teaching because they are so brainwashed.
And whats so scary is they can act almost normal.

The indoctrination process the JWs use is really a study in mind control techniques. The initial stages are ALL about gaining trust and being seen as an authority. Once they have that then the rest falls into place.

There are some youtube videos from former JWs that walk you through the indoctrination process. Pretty scary.

Of course phase II is equally brilliant. They put the recruit right out on the street (with a more "mature" witness for help and guidance) selling the cult to others. Of course there is nothing better than arguing and repeating the same message to solidify the indoctrination process.

There is a lost of stuff on the web that suggests that CIA has studied the Watchtower methods. There are others (more of a lunatic fringe) that say that the CIA has infiltrated the Watchtower. It is probably more likely that the Watchtower has infiltrated the CIA than the other way around!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121624
Oct 1, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point. But we have to look at what is different between a process of non-brainwashed learning versus indoctrination and the differences are not always clear. KAB evidently believes he came to his conclusions based on examination of the data and reasoned consideration. Other cultists might tell you that they have received their wisdom from a route that is superior to reason and evidence. Its not easy to break through that.

"Reason" is always big in cults. They all have "proof" that they are exactly right and can prove it. They develop credibility by knowing the "answers" to religious questions and by maintaining an illusion of internal consistency and adherence to religious standards (usually the Bible).

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121625
Oct 1, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The indoctrination process the JWs use is really a study in mind control techniques. The initial stages are ALL about gaining trust and being seen as an authority. Once they have that then the rest falls into place.
There are some youtube videos from former JWs that walk you through the indoctrination process. Pretty scary.
Of course phase II is equally brilliant. They put the recruit right out on the street (with a more "mature" witness for help and guidance) selling the cult to others. Of course there is nothing better than arguing and repeating the same message to solidify the indoctrination process.
There is a lost of stuff on the web that suggests that CIA has studied the Watchtower methods. There are others (more of a lunatic fringe) that say that the CIA has infiltrated the Watchtower. It is probably more likely that the Watchtower has infiltrated the CIA than the other way around!
I know a bit about this stuff having grown up within Scientology.

And yes, undermining the authority of outside groups while "demonstrating" the superiority of the insider authority (whether man or book or interpretation of book), all in an apparently reasonable way, is key.

Disagree? Hmmmm lets look at this...what errors do you think you might have made? What don't you understand? What is funny about this is that its also the implicit attitude of legitimate source of information. Are we not continually pointing out the errors we think the anti-evolutionists are making?

In my view the best defence is to make it as clear as possible what a legitimate source of information is likely to be. How it monitors itself, what is the foundation of its information, is it adaptable to new information. What kind of information is it? But its not always easy.

We don't have to go into deep religious philosophy to find cultism. Just look at something like the field of nutrition. Vegans battle it out with low carbers who battle it out with low fatters and so on and on. And establishing the truth through a minefield of apparently contradictory epidemiological studies, flawed controlled studies, multiple uncontrollable variables and so on means that this field even when it tries to adhere to the scientific method is fraught with complexity.

I liked Gary Taubes' book by the way - the big one. hehe.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121626
Oct 1, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I know a bit about this stuff having grown up within Scientology.
And yes, undermining the authority of outside groups while "demonstrating" the superiority of the insider authority (whether man or book or interpretation of book), all in an apparently reasonable way, is key.
Disagree? Hmmmm lets look at this...what errors do you think you might have made? What don't you understand? What is funny about this is that its also the implicit attitude of legitimate source of information. Are we not continually pointing out the errors we think the anti-evolutionists are making?
In my view the best defence is to make it as clear as possible what a legitimate source of information is likely to be. How it monitors itself, what is the foundation of its information, is it adaptable to new information. What kind of information is it? But its not always easy.
We don't have to go into deep religious philosophy to find cultism. Just look at something like the field of nutrition. Vegans battle it out with low carbers who battle it out with low fatters and so on and on. And establishing the truth through a minefield of apparently contradictory epidemiological studies, flawed controlled studies, multiple uncontrollable variables and so on means that this field even when it tries to adhere to the scientific method is fraught with complexity.
I liked Gary Taubes' book by the way - the big one. hehe.

Cult thinking is very human. We are herd animals and going along with the friendliest herd is a perfectly natural thing to do. While modern western society tends to reject being a member of the herd in favor of individuality, there is something to be said for having a more communal attitude. There is safety in numbers. But a little safety from external predators can leave us vulnerable to threats from within. The later is more dangerous as they are more unexpected. At least with individualism we know to be wary.

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rush/theenemyw...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121627
Oct 1, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Cult thinking is very human. We are herd animals and going along with the friendliest herd is a perfectly natural thing to do. While modern western society tends to reject being a member of the herd in favor of individuality, there is something to be said for having a more communal attitude. There is safety in numbers. But a little safety from external predators can leave us vulnerable to threats from within. The later is more dangerous as they are more unexpected. At least with individualism we know to be wary.
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rush/theenemyw...
The question. Can society survive rational empirical skepticism and can it survive a lack of it? But thats to ponder later. Now, sleep.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121628
Oct 1, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The question. Can society survive rational empirical skepticism and can it survive a lack of it? But thats to ponder later. Now, sleep.

Can you can throw that down and still sleep? I will be up all night.

It boggle da mind.
KAB

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121629
Oct 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point. But we have to look at what is different between a process of non-brainwashed learning versus indoctrination and the differences are not always clear. KAB evidently believes he came to his conclusions based on examination of the data and reasoned consideration. Other cultists might tell you that they have received their wisdom from a route that is superior to reason and evidence. Its not easy to break through that.
In case you haven't in fact left the building, thanks for seemingly recognizing and acknowledging that my positions are data not doctrine based. If my understanding of the data is flawed, I am open to having that demonstrated, of course, with data. I appreciate your willingness to address the reality rather than your imagination.
The Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121630
Oct 15, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
"Reason" is always big in cults. They all have "proof" that they are exactly right and can prove it.

That doesnt sound very different from a scientific community... Scientific communities even use scientific method, so they have the moral authority to claim they are exactly right... LOL!
Dogen wrote:
They develop credibility by knowing the "answers" to religious questions and by maintaining an illusion of internal consistency and adherence to religious standards (usually the Bible).
Whereas I can find a relationship between ancient spiritual concepts and "modern scientific thought", I could say the same about the gathering of geeks.*shrug*

But what are you hoping to prove?

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate. They demonstrate an irritating lack of knowledge of the nature of knowledge, reality and the means by which a valid conclusion (regarding anything at all)can be made...
The Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121631
Oct 15, 2013
 
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
...Be advised that science acknowledges that not genetically "finding" a bottleneck doesn't mean there wasn't one.
Good luck trying to get them to acknowledge that?

Evos are not too keen on the concept of "inability to detect "x" does not imply the non existence of "x""... Hence we have debates...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121632
Oct 15, 2013
 
Looks like God is mastrubating.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121633
Oct 15, 2013
 
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Whereas I can find a relationship between ancient spiritual concepts and "modern scientific thought", I could say the same about the gathering of geeks.*shrug*
But what are you hoping to prove?
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate. They demonstrate an irritating lack of knowledge of the nature of knowledge, reality and the means by which a valid conclusion (regarding anything at all)can be made...
Geez. That was a whole lot of nothing.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121634
Oct 15, 2013
 
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Good luck trying to get them to acknowledge that?
Evos are not too keen on the concept of "inability to detect "x" does not imply the non existence of "x""... Hence we have debates...
What!??!?

Yes, if there is no evidence of a bottleneck we can then state that there was not one.

Or can't you understand fairly simple genetics?
The Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121635
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever heard the phrase "whipping a dead horse"? All you do is come back daily with the same stuff, just reworded hoping it means something different,,, bad news is it doesn't. Quit whipping your dead horse for it will not get you anywhere. Find a new horse to ride in on and see what happens. To put it in short; You repeat the same stuff and add nothing new but expect to get different results. Not going to happen bud.
Interestingly enough, I could say he same about people who adhere to scientific concepts/philosophies...

All you do (as a matter of fact, all you CAN do), is describe the relationship between what you see now and your ASSUMPTIONS of what might have been.

The validity of your claims (as well as any claim, scientific or not) is based on the consistency of what you ASSUME with what is present before you.

As such you must have the epistemic humility to admit that the value of what you say is NOT based on actuality/ reality; but is only a rationalization... and be open to suggestions.
The Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121636
Oct 15, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
Looks like God is mastrubating.
Open wide and say, "aaaaahhhh"...

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121637
Oct 15, 2013
 
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Good luck trying to get them to acknowledge that?
Evos are not too keen on the concept of "inability to detect "x" does not imply the non existence of "x""... Hence we have debates...
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you have none then there's no way you can possible know just what it is you are supposed to believe in.
Accepting words of men who claim some invisible entity talked to them as divine is just silly.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121638
Oct 15, 2013
 
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Good luck trying to get them to acknowledge that?
Evos are not too keen on the concept of "inability to detect "x" does not imply the non existence of "x""... Hence we have debates...
Please elaborate on the circumstances leading to an undetectable genetic bottleneck occurring in all species at the same point it time.
The Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121639
Oct 15, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you seek, at all costs, to avoid the truth.
"Truth"?

Do you even believe that there is such a thing as "truth"?

If I remember correctly from past discussions on this or like topics; you yourself denied the existence of things such as "proof" and "truth" and "certainty"...
The Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121640
Oct 15, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What!??!?
Yes, if there is no evidence of a bottleneck we can then state that there was not one.
Or can't you understand fairly simple genetics?
Dont you understand that "there is no evidence" is not the same as "it never existed"?

As a matter of fact, you CANNOT rationally conclude that "there is no evidence"...

...you can however, honestly and objectively say "NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND"...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 119,461 - 119,480 of133,092
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••