|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Top Ten Signs You're a Foolish Atheist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warthog Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 84 From: Earth Joined: |
quote: It is - doc-tor v.tr. 3. a. To falsify or change in such a way as to make favorable to oneself: doctored the evidence.
quote: Exactly.
quote: I would say that doctoring is exactly the right word according to the definition above. The context of the image as presented is as photographic evidence of a scientific or archaeological claim. There is no mention of any alterations of the image on any site that uses it as evidence of the story. It qualifies as doctored evidence. also definition c. To alter or modify for a specific end The image as an object was modified i.e doctored. Local(?) usage of the term often refers specifically to images also. This is the context I was really using it in - the rest was me being pedantic Other words I might use to describe what was done are misrepresented, falsified and fraudulent.
quote: Haven't heard about any real evidence yet. I believe I've (briefly) shown that what we've seen so far doesn't hold up. I don't expect (but do hope) that someone will step up and show me why I'm wrong - I only spent about ten minutes on it so far (once I actually found it), so it should be easy if the claims are true.
quote: I am interested and suspicious too. I haven't found any reference to it other than creationist sites linking to chariots. Rings alarm bells the size of elephants. In reality, I don't know yet so I want to try the experiment. If I can graft a piece of acropora to a lump of gold, then we know. All I need is a piece of gold...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warthog Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 84 From: Earth Joined: |
That was great to read. It shows me that drawing people into dialogue can actually lead to the truth. Makes me hate the world a little less.
quote: That is beautifully put. I'll bet that everyone who was brought up in even a moderately religious environment and broken free of the dogma has had this moment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I've been waiting for Buz or the other Wyatt supporters to produce evidence that there actually are chariot wheels in the coral for years - literally. All I've heard is a claim that there were signs of rust on the coral - and further claims that they meant some other form of corrosion after it was pointed out that Egyptian chariots didn't use iron.
In the last thread (the one I linked to earlier) Buz said that he would produce evidence but that he had to repeat the claims that had already been rebutted first without addressing the objections (I can't think of any sensible reason why that could be anything other than a waste of time). He later admitted that he had no such evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warthog Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 84 From: Earth Joined: |
quote: Yeah, figured that. But we can live in hope, right? Posted that because I'd never heard of this one and just enjoyed dissecting it. Was prepared to shut up after that but got into a conversation. I do have to admit to hoping someone, anyone would step up and at least try after all of the complaints I'm reading about bias. Especially since I have been told that all the evidence here, somewhere. Message 68 Sadly, I expect to be disappointed. what all of this does do is to help explain why...
quote: Doesn't make moral judgements about it but it does explain why. It's all very scientific, don't you think? The real irony is that the sea bed is littered with things which have no business being in the water. Even if there was proof of the wheels, it wouldn't automatically demonstrate the accuracy of the exodus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined:
|
The topic isn't really about evidence for the Exodus, God, the Bible or the like. It's about a list of 'signs' that a person is a 'foolish atheist'. The topic is a little loose, and side issues are perfectly permissable, but I'd rather the thread wasn't taken over by talk of chariot wheels and coral. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
Fred Hoyle calculated the chance of spontaneously assembling 2000 proteins, of 200 amino acids each, at 1 in 10 to power of 40,000.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Please provide his calculations.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
In addition to Subbie's point please show that the model used by Hoyle accurately reflects the requirements for life to originate.
Anybody can do a calculation that produces an impressively low probability. Actually understanding how life might have originated to do a calculation that accurately estimates the probability of that event is a VERY different matter. A crankish scientist making some silly assumptions is a long way from a valid calculation of the probability of a natural origin of life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3661 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined:
|
Fred Hoyle calculated the chance of spontaneously assembling 2000 proteins, of 200 amino acids each, at 1 in 10 to power of 40,000. As Hoyle was a physicist and astronomer rather than a biochemist, his assertions on protein assembly could be called into question. He certainly didn't understand the combined working tenets of random mutation acted upon by non-random natural selection......otherwise he wouldn't have come up with your statement (which you don't source) nor his famous 'Hoyle's Fallacy (AKA 'Junkyard tornado' - Link to Wiki article ) which only goes to illustrate that Hoyle hadn't got a handle on the ToE. Next !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shield Member (Idle past 2882 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
According to Hoyle's analysis, the probability of cellular life evolving were about one-in-1040000. He commented: The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. which is a reflection of his stance reported elsewhere: Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?
Hoyle's Fallacy, sometimes called the junkyard tornado, is a term for Fred Hoyle's flawed statistical analysis applied to evolutionary origins, in which he compares the probability of cellular life evolving to the chance of a tornado "sweeping through a junkyard" and assembling a functional aeroplane. Hoyle's Fallacy is rejected by evolutionary biologists, since, as the late John Maynard Smith pointed out, "no biologist imagines that complex structures arise in a single step." The modern evolutionary synthesis explains how complex cellular structures evolved by analysing the intermediate steps required for precellular life. It is these intermediate steps that are omitted in creationist arguments, which is the cause of their over-estimating of the improbability of the entire process. Junkyard tornado - Wikipedia Edited by rbp, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Thanks a lot, pal!
I was hoping my challenge to Pollux might be a learning opportunity for him, but you've queered that deal.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3661 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined:
|
Hi Dwise1
I love your amazingly detailed descriptions of the creationist position in the 80's and beyond. The conversion stories are moving - and also sad - all that wasted energy that could have gone to better use! And who knows the personal angst so many must have gone through on finding their creationist masters had lied to them - all so the great money machine could continue! The con runs so deep - from the working class people conned by the shiny-suited televangelists, to those deluded holders of a 'diploma-mill' degree, who doubtless have thought they have worked hard and deserved their accreditation. I don't know about 'foolish atheists' - but 'foolish creationists' seem ten a penny (as we say in Yorkshire, England)!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
ten a penny We're much more value conscious on this side of the pond; we say a dime a dozen. Either way, I think we've both got same change coming.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Fred Hoyle calculated the chance of spontaneously assembling 2000 proteins, of 200 amino acids each, at 1 in 10 to power of 40,000. As Hoyle was a physicist and astronomer rather than a biochemist, his assertions on protein assembly could be called into question. He certainly didn't understand the combined working tenets of random mutation acted upon by non-random natural selection......otherwise he wouldn't have come up with your statement (which you don't source) nor his famous 'Hoyle's Fallacy (AKA 'Junkyard tornado' - Link to Wiki article ) which only goes to illustrate that Hoyle hadn't got a handle on the ToE. I've posted this before but never had a meaningful response by a creationist. Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture): What this does is show how those massive odds against evolution that some folks calculate (or make up) are not an accurate model of what is really going on. But then creationists don't seem to care if their models are accurate as long as they mirror the correct dogma. (Aside: a creationist on another website was fond of telling us the odds against evolution were 1720. He couldn't understand why we laughed at him.)Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Fred Hoyle calculated the chance of spontaneously assembling 2000 proteins, of 200 amino acids each, at 1 in 10 to power of 40,000. Two things to notice. First, since no-one claims that that's how life arose, the calculation is not germane. Secondly, even if this was relevant, it suffers from the defect of most, perhaps all, such irrelevant calculations performed by creationists --- it doesn't have the word "per" in it. They talk as though whatever it was that caused life had one shot at happening, one time, one place, and if that didn't come off it wouldn't happen at all. Any meaningful calculation has to go through a step where one calculates the likelihood of it happening per volume (e.g. per cubic meter of "primordial soup" or whatever) and per some unit of time. Of course, since we don't know what the first life was or the conditions under which it arose, it is impossible for anyone to actually do such a calculation, but if it was then this is what they would have to do.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024