Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2019 5:23 AM
18 online now:
PaulK, Pressie (2 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,218 Year: 9,254/19,786 Month: 1,676/2,119 Week: 436/576 Day: 31/80 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Author Topic:   questions evolutionists can't or won't answer
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 141 (14406)
07-29-2002 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by derwood
07-29-2002 1:08 PM


Look on the bright side. At least he didn't say he was going to eat your head!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by derwood, posted 07-29-2002 1:08 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 141 (14456)
07-29-2002 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by derwood
07-29-2002 11:58 AM


"When one's argument is invalid, confound your opposition with minutia and protocol." I saw that in bold type on a note being passed among creationists.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by derwood, posted 07-29-2002 11:58 AM derwood has not yet responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 141 (14579)
07-31-2002 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Fedmahn Kassad
07-29-2002 1:34 AM


Fedmahn:
By the way, I checked the posts at NAIG. It seems that John Paul was indeed posting under the name JAFC over there. He suddenly stopped when it was pointed out.

John Paul:
I checked also. Why would anyone take your word for it?

Fedmahn:
You really shouldn't tell fibs, John Paul, no matter what cause you are fighting for. You know the story of the boy who cried wolf. Before long people may question your honesty.

John Paul:
That would mean SLP can never be trusted. I exposed his lies and misrepresentations so many times I lost count.

Thanks for playin' though.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 07-29-2002 1:34 AM Fedmahn Kassad has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by derwood, posted 08-01-2002 12:20 PM John Paul has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 141 (14580)
07-31-2002 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by axial soliton
07-28-2002 1:53 AM


In one man's opinion, Mr. Meert has the best approach for dealing with people who devoutly believe in creationism. After all these years, this is unfortunate. At least in this Century, we can have the debate without the creationists killing us. They used to kill scientists, you know. (Creationist humor.)"
--Creationist humor, eh? Too bad it isn't funny..

"The evidence for evolution is everywhere. One just has to be inventive enough to know what he is looking at.
--Ie, a direction of interpretation.

"Remember the colds and flu that most of us get several times during our lives? Well, rhino viruses........ evolve. The reason they evolve is because we evolve to beat their infection method. it takes place by a natural selection method. Your favorite creationist has caught a cold and accidentally sneezes in the face of a fellow creationist. The 2,000 base pairs in the DNA of this particular strain of cold virus is new to his body. Grevious infection begins. His immune system rushes trial and error antibodies through tests to find out which molecular binding mechanism works best with the protein coat around this new DNA. It gets hits in the tests. 100's of billions of copies of the newly minted antibody are hurriedly made. This takes about 2-3 days. The antibodies bind to the fresh viri and incapacitate them faster than the viri can infect new cells and incubate new copies of themselves. The tide turns. This virus lost the evolutionary/natural selection race to the creationist's immune system. But, lurking in back channels is a virus that mutated a base pair and formed a slightly different protein coat. While it has to lie low in this anti-evolution creationist, all it takes is a sneeze and.... This is a continuous process of natural selection that started with the first virus and ends when there are no more humans the virus can find. Evolution."
--That's nice, doesn't play much significance, however, in the long run.

"I wonder if Mr. John Paul thinks god created dinosuar bones without dinosaur flesh around them?
--I'm not JP, so you'd have to ask him.

"Were there dinosaurs on the ark?"
--Yup.

"I think we all know that dinosaurs were never mentioned in any book of the bible."
--Could you read it first please?

"How do creationists resolve the fact that their myths are predated by and promulgated from those of the Assyrians?
--I don't think thats a fact axial.

"There was no first human."
--According to your interpretation, there may not have been, according to me, your wrong.

"There was a series of steps in the transition between the animal that looked australopithecine and the one that looked H. neanderthalansis. Like the evolving virus. Now there is us."
--See above.

"It is hard for me to believe that an alien created us by intelligent design, or life in general, when life develops all by itself through chemical processes."
--Okedoky, its hard for me too.

"Evolution is real."
--No problem there.

"The process of natural selection that fuels it began with the beginning of our solar system, in space."
--Sorta.

"Creationists are in for an even bumpier ride."
--I must be a good driver.

"How about this:
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=1779 Mars once had oceans. Titan still does. Anthrax spores have survived in Antarctica for 90 years: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/22/tech/main515899.shtml
There is a reference to the discovery in a US lab of how to make viruses by the vat. I will be on the look-out for that for a different reason. Making life is learning to control chemical processes. The only mystery is that some people choose not to try and understand the step-by-step process scientists and engineers use when they do something new.
--Still, no problem.

--BTW, I take the perspective of the YEC and welcome to the forum.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by axial soliton, posted 07-28-2002 1:53 AM axial soliton has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by John, posted 07-31-2002 7:58 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 141 (14590)
07-31-2002 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by TrueCreation
07-31-2002 4:50 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]--Creationist humor, eh? Too bad it isn't funny...[/quote]

[/b]

No it isn't; but accurate.

quote:
--That's nice, doesn't play much significance, however, in the long run.

It must be nice to be able to dismiss the evidence with a magic wand.

quote:
"Were there dinosaurs on the ark?"
--Yup.

You're joking. The ark, had it ever existed, wouldn't have been big enough to hold two of all of the currently living critters, much less all of the extinct ones.

quote:
"I think we all know that dinosaurs were never mentioned in any book of the bible."
--Could you read it first please?

I've read it. Didn't see no dinosaurs.

quote:
"How do creationists resolve the fact that their myths are predated by and promulgated from those of the Assyrians?
--I don't think thats a fact axial.

Don't know your comparative mythology do ya?

quote:
"There was no first human."
--According to your interpretation, there may not have been, according to me, your wrong.

But all you have for evidence is a book of fairy-tales.

quote:
"There was a series of steps in the transition between the animal that looked australopithecine and the one that looked H. neanderthalansis. Like the evolving virus. Now there is us."
--See above.

You mean up where you dismiss the evidence?

[quote][b]"How about this:
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=1779 Mars once had oceans. Titan still does. Anthrax spores have survived in Antarctica for 90 years: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/22/tech/main515899.shtml
There is a reference to the discovery in a US lab of how to make viruses by the vat. I will be on the look-out for that for a different reason. Making life is learning to control chemical processes. The only mystery is that some people choose not to try and understand the step-by-step process scientists and engineers use when they do something new.
--Still, no problem.
[/quote]

[/b]

Sounds like you just admitted to abiogenesis? Life is just chemistry.

Welcome back TC.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by TrueCreation, posted 07-31-2002 4:50 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by axial soliton, posted 08-01-2002 3:50 AM John has not yet responded
 Message 92 by TrueCreation, posted 08-02-2002 2:37 PM John has not yet responded

  
singularity
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 141 (14595)
07-31-2002 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by derwood
06-27-2002 2:00 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by SLPx:

One of my Favorite Flaws
--Even crude mathematical models can demonstrate (and can be field-tested) that any species wishing to evolve significantly (into another species) would require a time period of at least one quadrillion years, a body length of one or fewer centimeters, and a generation cycle of no more than three months. Biology is more fun than math (to me), but it leaves excess room for debate (which is also fun).

Hmmmmm- crude being the operative word here? And does this mean that SLPx accepts that very small organisms can evolve into other species? Better than nothing I guess....

Shane


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by derwood, posted 06-27-2002 2:00 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by derwood, posted 08-01-2002 12:24 PM singularity has not yet responded

  
axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 141 (14623)
08-01-2002 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by John
07-31-2002 7:58 PM


Many tanks. Couldn't have done better. I have an idea. Let's debate the facts!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by John, posted 07-31-2002 7:58 PM John has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 83 of 141 (14645)
08-01-2002 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by John Paul
07-31-2002 4:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

John Paul:
That would mean SLP can never be trusted. I exposed his lies and misrepresentations so many times I lost count.


You did? I must have missed all that. Funny though - JAFC went on a tear at NAIG a few weeks back claiming that I misrepresented everyone...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by John Paul, posted 07-31-2002 4:05 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by John Paul, posted 08-01-2002 1:28 PM derwood has responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 84 of 141 (14646)
08-01-2002 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by singularity
07-31-2002 8:45 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by singularity:
[B]
quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:

One of my Favorite Flaws....

Hmmmmm- crude being the operative word here? And does this mean that SLPx accepts that very small organisms can evolve into other species? Better than nothing I guess....

Shane


Hmmm... I was quoting someone else there. That quadrillion years bit is a hoot!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by singularity, posted 07-31-2002 8:45 PM singularity has not yet responded

    
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 141 (14648)
08-01-2002 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by derwood
08-01-2002 12:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

John Paul:
That would mean SLP can never be trusted. I exposed his lies and misrepresentations so many times I lost count.


You did? I must have missed all that. Funny though - JAFC went on a tear at NAIG a few weeks back claiming that I misrepresented everyone...


John Paul:
I have no doubt that you missed it. All that shows is you are pathological and have no shame.

One more thing, I do NOT copy you, I MOCK you.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by derwood, posted 08-01-2002 12:20 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by derwood, posted 08-01-2002 1:35 PM John Paul has responded
 Message 87 by John, posted 08-01-2002 1:35 PM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 90 by Admin, posted 08-01-2002 8:12 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 86 of 141 (14649)
08-01-2002 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by John Paul
08-01-2002 1:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

John Paul:
That would mean SLP can never be trusted. I exposed his lies and misrepresentations so many times I lost count.


You did? I must have missed all that. Funny though - JAFC went on a tear at NAIG a few weeks back claiming that I misrepresented everyone...


John Paul:
I have no doubt that you missed it. All that shows is you are pathological and have no shame.

One more thing, I do NOT copy you, I MOCK you.


I'm hurt. All this time, I thought we were pals!

I even feel bad that you get spanked so hard on BB so often. Well, not really....

But I really am curious as to what you think you served me my lunch on...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by John Paul, posted 08-01-2002 1:28 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by John Paul, posted 08-01-2002 2:41 PM derwood has responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 141 (14650)
08-01-2002 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by John Paul
08-01-2002 1:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
I have no doubt that you missed it. All that shows is you are pathological and have no shame.

oowie...!!!! harsh harsh harsh!!!!

Now if you called me pathological and shameless I'd chalk it up as obviously true, but not SLPx-- what a saint.....

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by John Paul, posted 08-01-2002 1:28 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 141 (14656)
08-01-2002 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by derwood
08-01-2002 1:35 PM


SLP:
I even feel bad that you get spanked so hard on BB so often.

John Paul:
When and if that ever happens I might feel bad too.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by derwood, posted 08-01-2002 1:35 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by derwood, posted 08-01-2002 3:44 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 42 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 89 of 141 (14658)
08-01-2002 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by John Paul
08-01-2002 2:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
I even feel bad that you get spanked so hard on BB so often.

John Paul:
When and if that ever happens I might feel bad too.


The incompetent rarely know it, often are even boastful, study finds

By Erica Goode
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

January 18, 2000

Thomas Jefferson's assertion that "he who knows best knows how little he knows" now has some scientific support.

According to a Cornell University study, most incompetent people do not know that they are incompetent.

On the contrary. People who do things badly usually are supremely confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact, than people who do things well, according to the findings of Dr. David A. Dunning, a psychology professor.

One reason that the ignorant tend to be the blissfully self-assured is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize competence, said Dunning, whose research was conducted with the assistance of a graduate student, Justin Kruger.

The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, the researchers suggested in a paper appearing in the December issue of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

"Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it," wrote Dunning and Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of Illinois.

This deficiency in "self-monitoring skills," the researchers said, helps explain the tendency of the humor-impaired to persist in telling jokes that are not funny, of day traders to repeatedly jump into the market -- and repeatedly lose out -- and of the politically clueless to continue holding forth at dinner parties on the fine points of campaign strategy.

Some college students, Dunning said, evince a similar blindness: after doing badly on a test, they spend hours in his office explaining why the answers he suggests for the test questions are wrong.

In a series of studies, Kruger and Dunning tested their theory of incompetence. They found that subjects who scored in the lowest quartile on tests of logic, English grammar and humor also were the most likely to "grossly overestimate" how well they had performed.

In all three tests, subjects' ratings of their ability were positively linked to their actual scores. But the lowest-ranked participants showed much greater distortions in their self-estimates.

Asked to evaluate their performance on the test of logical reasoning, for example, subjects who scored in the 12th percentile guessed that they had scored in the 62nd percentile and deemed their overall skill at logical reasoning to be at the 68th percentile.

Similarly, subjects who scored at the 10th percentile on the grammar test ranked themselves at the 67th percentile in the ability to "identify grammatically correct standard English" and estimated their test scores to be at the 61st percentile.

On the humor test, in which participants were asked to rate jokes according to their funniness (subjects' ratings were matched against those of an "expert" panel of professional comedians), low-scoring subjects also were more likely to have an inflated perception of their skill. But because humor is idiosyncratically defined, the researchers said, the results were less conclusive.

Unlike their unskilled counterparts, the most able subjects in the study, Kruger and Dunning found, were likely to underestimate their own competence. The researchers attributed this to the fact that, in the absence of information about how others were doing, highly competent subjects assumed that others were
performing as well as they were -- a phenomenon psychologists term the "false consensus effect."

When high-scoring subjects were asked to "grade" the grammar tests of their peers, however, they quickly revised their evaluations of their own performance. In contrast, the self-assessments of those who scored badly themselves were unaffected by the experience of grading others; some subjects even further inflated their estimates of their own abilities.

"Incompetent individuals were less able to recognize competence in others," the researchers concluded.

In a final experiment, Dunning and Kruger set out to discover whether training would help modify the exaggerated self-perceptions of incapable subjects. In fact, a short training session in logical reasoning did improve the ability of low-scoring subjects to assess their performance, they found.

The research meshes neatly with other work indicating that overconfidence is common; studies have found, for example, that the vast majority of people rate themselves as "above average" on a wide array of abilities -- though such an abundance of talent would be impossible in statistical terms. And this
overestimation, studies indicate, is more likely for tasks that are difficult than for those that are easy.

Such studies are not without critics. Dr. David Funder, a psychology professor at the University of California Riverside, for example, said he suspected that most lay people had only a vague idea of the meaning of "average" in statistical terms.

"I'm not sure the average person thinks of 'average' or 'percentile' in quite that literal a sense," Funder said, "so 'above average' might mean to them 'pretty good,' or 'OK,' or 'doing all right.' And if, in fact, people mean something subjective when they use the word, then it's really hard to evaluate whether
they're right or wrong using the statistical criterion."

But Dunning said his research and other studies indicated that there were many reasons why people would tend to overestimate their competency, and not be aware of it.

In some cases, Dunning pointed out, an awareness of one's own inability is inevitable: "In a golf game, when your ball is heading into the woods, you know you're incompetent," he said.

But in other situations, feedback is absent, or at least more ambiguous; even a humorless joke, for example, is likely to be met with polite laughter. And, faced with incompetence, social norms prevent most people from blurting out, "You stink!" -- truthful though this assessment may be.

All of which inspired in Dunning and his co-author, in presenting their research to the public, a certain degree of nervousness.

"This article may contain faulty logic, methodological errors or poor communication," they cautioned in their journal report. "Let us assure our readers that to the extent this article is imperfect, it is not a sin we have committed knowingly."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by John Paul, posted 08-01-2002 2:41 PM John Paul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 08-02-2002 9:58 AM derwood has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 90 of 141 (14675)
08-01-2002 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by John Paul
08-01-2002 1:28 PM


John Paul writes:

That would mean SLP can never be trusted. I exposed his lies and misrepresentations so many times I lost count.
...
I have no doubt that you missed it. All that shows is you are pathological and have no shame.

This style is unacceptable here. Your posting privileges are suspended for the next 48 hours. Please follow the Forum Guidelines in the future.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by John Paul, posted 08-01-2002 1:28 PM John Paul has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019