Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 5:48 PM
24 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, kjsimons, ooh-child, PaulK, Taq (6 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,242 Year: 5,279/19,786 Month: 1,401/873 Week: 297/460 Day: 49/64 Hour: 0/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   Irrefutable departure
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(2)
Message 16 of 48 (545109)
02-01-2010 7:52 AM


Thanks to Parasomnium, and others, for their comments.

I am still friendly with Taz, even if he is not with me. While I welcome kind comments, it's not necessary to say anything bad about Taz, I think he just misunderstands me with the planet-comment. He would not notice me if I lived with him for six months. Even people "close" to me don't realize how MUCH I am Christian, so I fail to see how my distancing would change much, other than the fact that one less friendly albeit none-social person's presence being diminished.

Yes, I am Christian, strongly Christian, but whether I am more or less biblical, this doesn't affect me...as I have and always have been someone that believes in Jesus Christ, fully.

Unfortunately, forums such as these only give us a glimpse of a person. yes - at time I have been too strong in my opinions, and sometimes let the heat override the head, but that heat comes from what you might call passion.

It's a bit cheesy but it's the only word I can find that fits the truth a little.

Not much to say really, I see there is now private messaging and some sort of rating system that suggests that people truly rate my posts as low. That's a shame because I can almost guarantee you that only a few people understand what I am saying.

Parasomnium is one of them, because he almost solved my riddle, which means he must think logically.

Thus far, he is the only one that actually has shown something aswell as saying something. Other types are just here for belidgerent war.

I truly apreciate the former-types that have humility, genuine smartness, and no unkind input.

I have resolved to work HARD on being, "at peace with all men".

P.s. I am not an enemy of atheists.


Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2010 7:05 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 17 of 48 (545132)
02-01-2010 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
10-01-2009 1:15 PM


One can only assess things based on their own thinking, and what others say. But it seems that both creationists and evolutionists won't agree on even the details ...

Well of course not.

Haven't you heard?

The Devil is in the details.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 10-01-2009 1:15 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 02-02-2010 6:43 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 18 of 48 (545193)
02-02-2010 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Adequate
02-01-2010 3:15 PM


Details
Indeed.

This is why, to an extent, as I said in message 1, it is confusing. Not just for me, but for creationists and evolutionists. As much as both sides want to believe they have the rational-cookie, in my experience, only the complete detachment of bias in one's mind, works in favour of cogent, coherent, workable logic.

This is why, in the past, I have discussed "evidence" so very much, and the ad nauseum, "red-ball theory" example.

It is my attempt to force both sides to see things in a boring, objective way.

For me, there is no ultimate reconciliation. One side has death, the other side has design. Both seem to be facts.

Unless you have a painful immutable truth-seeking trait, you will forego facts, and not be conscious of it.

You have to REMOVE, consciously, all attempts to say something based on your opinion, put it to one side, and assess things with a painful honesty.

This is why I say the best evidence for transitionals, to my mind, is the transitionals of the australopithecines leading to the humans. Why? Because I observe that the least morphological change is conceivable, whereas other "kinds" are less conceivable.

Yes, this doesn't "favour" me and my bible. But my point is; so bloody what!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-01-2010 3:15 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-02-2010 3:06 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 20 by Taq, posted 02-02-2010 3:38 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2621 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 19 of 48 (545242)
02-02-2010 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mike the wiz
02-02-2010 6:43 AM


Re: Details
mike the wiz writes:

This is why I say the best evidence for transitionals, to my mind, is the transitionals of the australopithecines leading to the humans. Why? Because I observe that the least morphological change is conceivable, whereas other "kinds" are less conceivable.

I suspect that this is because you're a hominid. You're predisposed to see fine differences and gradations in hominid features, thus the morphological similarities of modern humans and their ancestors are easier for you to discern.

Were you a horse, I suspect that you'd find the evidence of equine relations and common descent to be most convincing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 02-02-2010 6:43 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2010 6:43 AM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7701
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 20 of 48 (545246)
02-02-2010 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mike the wiz
02-02-2010 6:43 AM


Re: Details
This is why, to an extent, as I said in message 1, it is confusing. Not just for me, but for creationists and evolutionists. As much as both sides want to believe they have the rational-cookie, in my experience, only the complete detachment of bias in one's mind, works in favour of cogent, coherent, workable logic.

Evolution can be pragmatically (i.e. workable logic) applied to biology. For instance, using the predictions from the theory of evolution you can predict protein function from DNA sequence with 96% accuracy (a large improvement over other techniques).

quote:
PLoS Comput Biol. 2005 Oct;1(5):e45. Epub 2005 Oct 7.

Protein molecular function prediction by Bayesian phylogenomics.
Engelhardt BE, Jordan MI, Muratore KE, Brenner SE.

Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America. bee@cs.berkeley.edu

We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. Our method produced specific and consistent molecular function predictions across 100 Pfam families in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. We performed a more detailed exploration of functional predictions on the adenosine-5'-monophosphate/adenosine deaminase family and the lactate/malate dehydrogenase family, in the former case comparing the predictions against a gold standard set of published functional characterizations. Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods such as BLAST (75%), GeneQuiz (64%), GOtcha (89%), and Orthostrapper (11%). We also experimentally characterized the adenosine deaminase from Plasmodium falciparum, confirming SIFTER's prediction. The results illustrate the predictive power of exploiting a statistical model of function evolution in phylogenomic problems. A software implementation of SIFTER is available from the authors.
source


What are the practical applications for ID/creationism? None that I have seen.

You can say all you want about beliefs vs. beliefs, but at the end of the day the theory of evolution has real world applications that produce results.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 02-02-2010 6:43 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 21 of 48 (545325)
02-03-2010 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by ZenMonkey
02-02-2010 3:06 PM


Re: Details
That's not why, but it's interesting, thanks.

What I meant by the least morphological changes, is that I can conceive, from looking at skulls such as Africanus, Habillis etc,... that a progression from ape to human, is plausible/credulous.

I have discussed, at length, in other topics, why it is honest to qualify a transitional, even though it doesn't prove much.

There are still problems, for me - which the press do not expound, such as the difference in the gait between human and apes/monkeys, and the different design of arch in the foot. An ape's legs are more like arms, or atleast, it's as though they have four hands.

The evidence, having read into details about it, doesn't convince me that there is a real, historical transition. I know about nested hierarchies, but I need to learn more about that, as I don't pretend to be a scientist, unlike you people.

(This must be my last post, as this topic is about my departure, which is unrefuted!

Bye.........................AGAIN.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-02-2010 3:06 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 22 of 48 (545326)
02-03-2010 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by onifre
10-02-2009 12:30 AM


You, Taz, on the other hand are a complete and total asshole who no one likes. That's the sad part. People would actually care more about a creationist that disagrees with them than you, an obnoxious douche bag with no point to make on any thread ever.

Oni, don't be so coy and bashful. Stop holding back and let him know how you truly feel. Don't sugarcoat it!


"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by onifre, posted 10-02-2009 12:30 AM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2010 7:05 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 23 of 48 (545328)
02-03-2010 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Hyroglyphx
02-03-2010 6:52 AM


Even if Taz would rather me on a different planet, I wave a banner from Mars, with a request;

"Please don't sin against taz".

I say this, because those comments hurt me, when I read them. I think Taz, he understands his own position, and in his world it makes sense that I have "gotten worse".

I think deep down - Taz needs to know for himself, the real Christ, and focus on what he said and done, and not what Christians fail at doing, so very miserably.

It's okay to call mikey things, with mikey - but I would only request that you do not hurt eachother with words intended to sting the soul. Taz is a person too, a miracle, and I hope he can dispose of bitterness, and offer what he has, which is plenty.

Bye again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2010 6:52 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Stile, posted 02-03-2010 9:06 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 24 of 48 (545329)
02-03-2010 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by mike the wiz
02-01-2010 7:52 AM


I have resolved to work HARD on being, "at peace with all men".

P.s. I am not an enemy of atheists.

You were more at peace with everyone before you were so sure of yourself, your faith, and your destiny.

You still have a kind disposition and an amicable personality, but there is a sense amongst your peers that you have lost some of your humility and traded it in for assuredness.


"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mike the wiz, posted 02-01-2010 7:52 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2010 9:00 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 25 of 48 (545346)
02-03-2010 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
02-03-2010 7:05 AM


Thanks for the analysis.

But let's not mince words, mikey holds his ground, keeps his pistoles loaded, and hangs on like a tick on a boar.

This is highly tedious to my "peers". But like Dumbledore, and Duracel , superman's dad, my peers can be wrong.

You see, you have to read my original posts. God has given me wisdom and discerning. Yes - I struggle with pride, because knowledge puffs up. I am trying to deflate the mikey-balloon, but you have to realise that I KNOW the things I say are based on correct wisdom.

Think! If you don't just believe you have something, but you actually know it, but nobody else acknowledges, do you just fold to their will?

I like what Ayrton Senna said - that you shouldn't allow people to mould you into what they want you to be. You have to be yourself, (paraphrase).

It's not assuredness, it's that a deduction is the same as getting a maths problem correct, only we are using language, that foggy problem!

If you calculate 5 x 5 and KNOW it's 25 do you doubt yourself, because people can't see it?

Now, I am not always correct, this I conceded, but I can tell you whether I am correct certainly, when I am.

Here is my blog, I'd rather people didn't comment, it's just a basic overview of the issue, read from the bottom. http://caeviews.blogspot.com/


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2010 7:05 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Nuggin, posted 02-03-2010 11:00 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 02-03-2010 3:43 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2010 7:42 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3439
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 26 of 48 (545347)
02-03-2010 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by mike the wiz
02-03-2010 7:05 AM


See you later
mike the wiz writes:

I think deep down - Taz needs to know for himself, the real Christ, and focus on what he said and done, and not what Christians fail at doing, so very miserably.

What if Taz just focused on being a good person, instead of "the real Christ", would that be enough?

What is your priority? Recruitment, or being good and nice?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2010 7:05 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by iano, posted 02-03-2010 9:21 AM Stile has responded

    
iano
Member (Idle past 52 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 27 of 48 (545348)
02-03-2010 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Stile
02-03-2010 9:06 AM


Re: See you later
Stile writes:

What if Taz just focused on being a good person, instead of "the real Christ", would that be enough?

Could very well be. If Taz focussed on being a good person, I mean really, really focussed.. then there'd be a decent chance that he'd realise that he can't actually be a good person.

Which, I think, is what the "real Christ" set out to teach both in word and in (by comparison with his) deed

What is your priority? Recruitment, or being good and nice?

Recruitment by being good and nice ... I'd wager Mike saying

Edited by iano, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Stile, posted 02-03-2010 9:06 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Stile, posted 02-03-2010 10:59 AM iano has responded
 Message 42 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-03-2010 7:53 PM iano has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3439
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 28 of 48 (545349)
02-03-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by iano
02-03-2010 9:21 AM


Re: See you later
iano writes:

Which, I think, is what the "real Christ" set out to teach both in word and in (by comparison with his) deed

Which is exactly my question, what's more important? Recruiting for the "real Christ" or his words and deeds that described/showed how to be "good and nice" (for the most part)?

Recruitment by being good and nice ... I'd wager Mike saying

So "both" then? You're certainly allowed to have 2 priorities that you hold in equal regard. Just makes it difficult if there's ever a situation where one must choose between them. Nothing wrong with that... it's just more complex.

Just focusing on being "good and nice" is much simpler and seems better than trying to add "recruitment" into the mix... without any "good and nice" reason to add such a thing, anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by iano, posted 02-03-2010 9:21 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by iano, posted 02-03-2010 12:23 PM Stile has responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 603 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 29 of 48 (545350)
02-03-2010 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by mike the wiz
02-03-2010 9:00 AM


It's not assuredness, it's that a deduction is the same as getting a maths problem correct, only we are using language, that foggy problem!

If you calculate 5 x 5 and KNOW it's 25 do you doubt yourself, because people can't see it?

Now, I am not always correct, this I conceded, but I can tell you whether I am correct certainly, when I am.

There is a particular kind of arrogance that I only ever seem to find in Christians who are so self righteous that they are _sure_ they are correct.

The problem is these people are inevitably under educated and virtually without rational thought.

Yes, if you and everyone else agrees 5x5=25, then it's probably correct.

However, if you insist that it's 26, because you _KNOW_ it is, and the vast majority of people are telling you you are wrong, you need to re-evaluate the "skills" that you are using to come to your conclusion.

Religion is fine the same way philosophy or professional sports are fine. If you want to spend you time doing that, good for you. The problem is that more often than not, people who spend their time being "religious" aren't doing so for themselves.

If they were, we'd never hear about it.

No, they are doing so to shove it into everyone else's face, it breeds a kind of profound intolerance, a core hatred and a pillar of complete ignorance - and those three things are what drives these people.

If there were any truly religious people, they wouldn't be posting to a web forum such as this - trying to PROVE to us or SHOW OFF how spiritual they are.

Would the Dali Lama be posting to EVC? I think not.

So, any time we see someone with an icon proclaiming their faith, it's a fair bet that this person isn't worthy of the image they've chosen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2010 9:00 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by iano, posted 02-03-2010 12:33 PM Nuggin has responded

    
iano
Member (Idle past 52 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 30 of 48 (545359)
02-03-2010 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Stile
02-03-2010 10:59 AM


Re: See you later
Stile writes:

Which is exactly my question, what's more important? Recruiting for the "real Christ" or his words and deeds that described/showed how to be "good and nice" (for the most part)?

I don't think his words showed how one is to be good & nice so much as they showed what good and nice are considered to be.

Telling someone to love their neighbour isn't telling them how to be good & nice. If you want to tell someone how to be good & nice, you'd give them a workable method whereby they could overcome the selfishness/hatred/anger/lust that so often prevents people loving their neighbour.

I don't recall Jesus doing anything like that. It seems to me that he majored on the standard - not how we go about achieving it.

-

So "both" then? You're certainly allowed to have 2 priorities that you hold in equal regard. Just makes it difficult if there's ever a situation where one must choose between them. Nothing wrong with that... it's just more complex.

I'd see it as the one priority consisting of two parts. Letting your light shine (being good & nice) as part of the mechanism of recruitment. That doesn't require a choosing between the two componants of the priority.

Of course, Sin will tend to work against the recruitment attempt - with extinguishing the light being the primary aim of sin's attack.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Stile, posted 02-03-2010 10:59 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Stile, posted 02-03-2010 1:07 PM iano has responded

  
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019