Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 5:44 AM
19 online now:
AZPaul3, vimesey (2 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,794 Year: 9,830/19,786 Month: 2,252/2,119 Week: 288/724 Day: 13/114 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   secularists do not want the truth
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 16 of 85 (575805)
08-21-2010 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by archaeologist
08-21-2010 3:08 AM


BUT as you can see in the article NO PROOF or EVIDENCE was offered for such a scenario ...

"PROOF or EVIDENCE" that a woman inherits her genes from her parents?

If your parents have not already explained to you about "the birds and the bees", then I feel that this is their job and not ours.

And until you have grasped this important biological concept, I fear that the more recondite issues in biology discussed on these forums may be somewhat beyond your grasp.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by archaeologist, posted 08-21-2010 3:08 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 08-21-2010 6:18 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18494
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 17 of 85 (575816)
08-21-2010 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate
08-21-2010 4:41 AM


Dr Adequate writes:

"PROOF or EVIDENCE" that a woman inherits her genes from her parents?

That was my reaction, too. I think Archaeologist must have a random objection generator. It doesn't matter how basic and fundamental something is, he objects. He reminds me of this Groucho Marx song from the movie Horse Feathers:

Groucho Marx writes:

[Groucho]
I don't know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it.

Your proposition may be good,
But let's have one thing understood,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it.

I'm opposed to it,
On general principle, I'm opposed to it.

[chorus]
He's opposed to it.
In fact, indeed, that he's opposed to it!

[Groucho]
For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night to morn,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it,
I'm against it!

AbE: A movie is worth a million words:

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Add video.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 4:41 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 85 (575886)
08-21-2010 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by archaeologist
08-21-2010 3:08 AM


BUT as you can see in the article NO PROOF or EVIDENCE was offered for such a scenario

If you want to see the evidence you have to go to the actual peer-reviewed journal article, not the popular science reporting. Popular science reporters skip covering the evidence because it's really boring.

Science isn't done in newspapers, it's done in peer-reviewed journal articles. But, again - the proof of the notion that mitochondrial DNA is inherited matrilineally is that the ovum does not incorporate the mitochondria of the sperm during fertilization. Mitochondrial DNA must be matrilineal because the father's mitochondrial DNA is observed not to contribute to the zygote (we can watch fertilization happen under a microscope and know this to be true.)

to have 1 set of parents for all we do not need 200,000 years.

But we don't have 1 set of parents for all. We have one mitochondrial "Eve" 200,000 years ago, and one "Y-Adam" 100,000 years ago. And it takes 200,000 and 100,000 years because that's how long it took. It's like saying - "why does it take an hour to drive between Lincoln and Omaha"? Because that's how long it takes. That's how long the road is, that's the traffic conditions, that's the back-up caused by the construction along I-80.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by archaeologist, posted 08-21-2010 3:08 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by archaeologist, posted 08-23-2010 4:35 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2362 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 19 of 85 (575923)
08-21-2010 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by archaeologist
08-21-2010 3:08 AM


i don't trust the dating, but if the data is correct then it stands to reason there is some finagling going on to produce the large time span for both. my point is, that the scientific data is pointing towards the validty of the Bible -all people came from adam and eve, but the details are sketchy considering the source.

Just because you don't trust the dating doesn't mean that there is any finagling going on. The fact is that you can't possibly comprehend that there can be anything wrong with your book.

The point is that you are assuming Mitochondrial-Eve was the first Human woman. Mitochondrial-Eve is the MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) of all living humans. Whether it was 10,000 or 50,000 or 100,000 or 200,000 years ago matters not. Mitochondral-Eves mother was also Common ancestor as was her mother and her mother.... The same goes for Y-Chromosome Adam
Except his line starts later

Ancestors Tale writes:

Second, Eve and Adam were not a couple. it would be a mojor coincidence if they ever met, and they could well have been separated by tens of thousands of years. As a subsidiary point, there are independent reasons to believe that Eve preceded Adam. Males are more variable in reproductive success than females: where some females have five times as many children as other females, the most successful males could have hundreds of times as many children as unsuccessful males. A male with alarge harumfinds it easy to be a universal ancestor. A female, since she is less likely to have a large family, needs a larger number of generations to achieve the same feat. And indeed, today's best 'molecular clock' estimates for their respective dates are about 140, 000 years ago for Eve and only about 60, 000 for Adam.


The Ancestor's Tale, Richard Dawkins, p 54


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by archaeologist, posted 08-21-2010 3:08 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 08-22-2010 7:05 AM bluescat48 has responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 20 of 85 (575983)
08-22-2010 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by bluescat48
08-21-2010 7:09 PM


Not the MRCA!
The point is that you are assuming Mitochondrial-Eve was the first Human woman. Mitochondrial-Eve is the MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) of all living humans.

Mitochondrial Eve is most certainly not the MRCA, she's the most recent common ancestor if you trace exclusively down the female line. Just as Y-Chromosome Adam is the most recent if you trace exclusively down the male line.

The MRCA is more recent than either of these.

(I think, from what you say later in your post, that you understand this; but I think it's an important misconception to clarify)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by bluescat48, posted 08-21-2010 7:09 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by bluescat48, posted 08-22-2010 12:15 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2362 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


(1)
Message 21 of 85 (575998)
08-22-2010 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Jack
08-22-2010 7:05 AM


Re: Not the MRCA!
Thanks for the clarification. Mitochondrial-Eve is the MRCA on the female line. Just as y-Chromosome-Adam is on the male line.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 08-22-2010 7:05 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 22 of 85 (576014)
08-22-2010 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 4:58 PM


when christians present it, they dismiss or reject it without consideration but whenthey see the evidence for themselves, and as a result of their own work, they still reject it and make up stories to hide from the fact.

Could you explain how this is in any way supposed to be evidence that evos ignore?

You seem to be ignoring the time frame involved that directly contradicts the time frame of the bible.

Seems to me you are guilty of confirmation bias.

Edited by Larni, : interactive menu, director commentary, making of documentory


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 4:58 PM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by archaeologist, posted 08-23-2010 4:32 AM Larni has responded

    
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 85 (576178)
08-23-2010 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Jack
08-21-2010 4:01 AM


i did read some of the paper and saw thatit was all assumption so i stopped reading it. i never trust the dates coming form secualr sources and if they really tried, they would have found that the dna stopped at about 6-10,000 years NOT 200,000. same for the adam side.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Jack, posted 08-21-2010 4:01 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-23-2010 5:08 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Dr Jack, posted 08-24-2010 5:08 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 85 (576179)
08-23-2010 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Larni
08-22-2010 1:39 PM


You seem to be ignoring the time frame involved

the evolutionary time frame is made up, fictitious, and not real. it doesn't contradict the Biblical record for it does not exisst except in the imaginations of evolutionists. even the archaeological table, the three age sytem, was fictitious and created arbitrarily without evidence or proof. it is wrong as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Larni, posted 08-22-2010 1:39 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Larni, posted 08-23-2010 5:15 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 32 by bluescat48, posted 08-23-2010 10:03 AM archaeologist has responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 85 (576180)
08-23-2010 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
08-21-2010 3:20 PM


If you want to see the evidence you have to go to the actual peer-reviewed journal article

you mean the same peer review system where scientists do not replicate experiments, do not read the reports or papers sent them, is easily manipulated, biased, prejudiced and does not confirm anything about the original report?

that is just a lousy system to use as evidence and proof. sorry but i will pass on taking those people's word for anything. that is a faulty system that needs to be scrapped.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 3:20 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by hotjer, posted 08-23-2010 7:24 AM archaeologist has responded
 Message 49 by Blue Jay, posted 08-26-2010 2:02 PM archaeologist has responded

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 3114 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 26 of 85 (576182)
08-23-2010 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by archaeologist
08-23-2010 4:30 AM


i did read some of the paper and saw thatit was all assumption so i stopped reading it.

Yet you make the gross assumption that the story of Genesis is completely true.

Extraordinary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by archaeologist, posted 08-23-2010 4:30 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 27 of 85 (576183)
08-23-2010 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by archaeologist
08-23-2010 4:32 AM


Oh. Well that clears things up considerably. Your position is that of a twat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by archaeologist, posted 08-23-2010 4:32 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
hotjer
Member (Idle past 2717 days)
Posts: 113
From: Denmark
Joined: 04-02-2010


(1)
Message 28 of 85 (576197)
08-23-2010 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by archaeologist
08-23-2010 4:35 AM


Oh, you mean this paper:

Alternatives to the Wright–Fisher model: The robustness of mitochondrial Eve dating
Theoretical Population Biology, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 19 June 2010
Krzysztof A. Cyran, Marek Kimmel

....

References
Bjorklund, M., 2003. Test for a population expansion after a drastic reduction in
population size using DNA sequence data. Heredity 91, 481486.
Bobrowski, A., Kimmel, M., 2004. Asymptotic behavior of joint distributions of
characteristics of a pair of randomly chosen individuals in discrete-time
FisherWright models with mutations and drift. Theor. Popul. Biol. 66, 355367.
Briggs, A.W., Good, J.M., Green, R.E., Krause, J., Maricic, T., Stenzel, U.,
Lalueza-Fox, C., Rudan, P., Brajkovi, D., Kucan, Z., Gui, I., Schmitz, R.,
Doronichev, V.B., Golovanova, L.V., de la Rasilla, M., Fortea, J., Rosas, A.,
Pääbo, S., 2009. Targeted retrieval and analysis of five Neanderthal mtDNA
genomes. Science 325, 318321.
Burbano, H.A., Hodges, E., Green, R.E., Briggs, A.W., Krause, J., Meyer, M., Good, J.M.,
Maricic, T., Johnson, Ph.L.F., Xuan, Z., Rooks, M., Bhattacharjee, A., Brizuela, L.,
Albert, F.W., de la Rasilla, M., Fortea, J., Rosas, A., Lachmann, M., Hannon, G.J.,
Pääbo, S., 2010. Targeted investigation of the Neanderthal genome by arraybased
sequence capture. Science 328, 723725.
Cyran, K.A., 2007. Simulating branching processed in the problem of Mitochondrial
Eve dating based on coalescent distributions. Int. J. Math. Comput. Simul. 1,
268274.
Cyran, K.A., Kimmel, M., 2004. Robustness of the dating of the most recent common
female ancestor of modern humans. In: Proc. Tenth National Conference on
Application of Mathematics in Biology and Medicine, Swie ty Krzy», Poland.
pp. 1924.
Cyran, K.A., Kimmel, M., 2005. Interactions of Neanderthals and modern humans:
what can be inferred from mitochondrial DNA? Math. Biosci. Eng. 2, 487498.
Cyran, K.A., Myszor, D., 2008. New artificial neural network based test for the
detection of past population expansion using microsatellite loci. Int. J. Appl.
Math. Inform. 2, 19.
Green, R.E., Krause, J., Briggs, A.W., Maricic, T., Stenzel, U., Kircher, M.,
Patterson, N., Li, H., Zhai, W., Fritz, M.H.-Y., Hansen, N.F., Durand, E.Y.,
Malaspinas, A.-S., Jensen, J.D., Marques-Bonet, T., Alkan, C., Prüfer, K.,
Meyer, M., Burbano, H.A., Good, J.M., Schultz, R., Aximu-Petri, A., Butthof, A.,
Höber, B., Höffner, B., Siegemund, M., Weihmann, A., Nusbaum, Ch., Lander, E.S.,
Russ, C., Novod, N., Affourtit, J., Egholm, M., Verna, Ch., Rudan, P.,
Brajkovic, D., Kucan, š., Gu²ic, I., Doronichev, V.B., Golovanova, L.V.,
Lalueza-Fox, C., de la Rasilla, M., Fortea, J., Rosas, A., Schmitz, R.W.,
Johnson, Ph.L.F., Eichler, E.E., Falush, D., Birney, E., Mullikin, J.C.,
Slatkin, M., Nielsen, R., Kelso, J., Lachmann, M., Reich, D., Pääbo, S., 2010.
A draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome. Science 328, 710721.
Green, R.E., Krause, J., Ptak, S.E., Briggs, A.W., Ronan, M.T., Simons, J.F., Du, L., Egholm,
M., Rothberg, J.M., Paunovic, M., Pääbo, S., 2006. Analysis of one million base
pairs of Neanderthal DNA. Nature 444, 330336.
Green, R.E., Malaspinas, A.-S., Krause, J., Briggs, A.W., Johnson, Ph.L.F.,
Uhler, C., Meyer, M., Good, J.M., Maricic, T., Stenzel, U., Pruefer, K., Siebauer, M.,
Burbano, H.A., Ronan, M., Rothberg, J.M., Egholm, M., Rudan, P., Brajkovic, D.,
Kucan, Z., Gusic, I., Wikstrom, M., Laakkonen, L., Kelso, J., Slatkin, M., Pääbo, S.,
2008. A complete Neanderthal mitochondrial genome sequence determined by
high-throughput sequencing. Cell 134, 416426.
Griffiths, R.C., Tavaré, S., 1995. Unrooted genealogical tree probabilities in the
infinitely-many-sites model. Math. Biosci. 127, 7798.
Hasegawa, M., Horai, S., 1991. Time of the deepest root for polymorphism in human
mitochondrial DNA. J. Mol. Evol. 32, 3742.
Jobling, M., 2001. In the name of the father: surnames and genetics. Trends Genet.
17, 353357.
Kimmel, M., Axelrod, D.E., 2002. Branching Processes in Biology. Springer-Verlag,
New York.
Kimmel, M., Chakraborty, R., King, J., Bamshad, M., Watkins, W., Jorde, L., 1998.
Signatures of population expansion in microsatellite repeat data. Genetics 148,
19211930.
King, J.P., Kimmel, M., Chakraborty, R., 2000. A power analysis of microstallite-based
statistics for inferring past population growth. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17, 18591868.
Klebaner, F.C., Sagitov, S., 2002. The age of a GaltonWatson population with a
geometric offspring distribution. J. Appl. Probab. 39, 816828.
Krings, M., Capelli, C., Tschentscher, F., Geisert, H., Meyer, S., von Haeseler,
A., Grossschmidt, K., Possnert, G., Paunovic, M., Pääbo, S., 2000. A view of
Neanderthal genetic diversity. Nat. Genet. 26, 144146.
Krings, M., Geisert, H., Schmitz, R., Krainitzki, H., Pääbo, S., 1999. DNA sequence of
the mitochondrial hypervariable region II from the Neanderthal type specimen.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 55815585.
Krings, M., Stone, A., Schmitz, R., Krainitzki, H., Stoneking, M., Pääbo, S., 1997.
Neanderthal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell 90,
1930.
Laan, M., Wiebe, V., Khusnutdinova, E., Remm, M., Pääbo, S., 2005. X-chromosome
as a marker for population history: linkage disequilibrium and haplotype study
in Euroasians populations. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 13, 452462.
Lambert, A., 2003. Coalescence times for the branching process. Adv. Appl. Probab.
35, 10711098.
Nagylaki, T., 1990. Models and approximations for random genetic drift. Theor.
Popul. Biol. 37, 192212.
Noonan, J.P., Coop, G., Kudaravalli, S., Smith, D., Krause, J., Alessi, J., Chen, F.,
Platt, D., Pääbo, S., Pritchard, J.K., Rubin, E.M., 2006. Sequencing and analysis
of Neanderthal genomic DNA. Science 314, 11131118.
O'Connell, N., 1995. The genealogy of branching processes and the age of our most
recent common ancestor. Adv. Appl. Probab. 27, 418442.
Ovchinnikov, I., Götherström, A., Romanova, G., Kharitonov, V., Lidén, K.,
Goodwin, W., 2000. Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern
Caucasus. Nature 404, 490493.
Pennisi, E., 2007. No sex please, we're Neanderthals. Science 318, 967.
Pennisi, E., 2006. The dawn of the stone age genomics. Science 314, 10681071.
Plagnol, V., Wall, J.D., 2006. Possible ancestral structure in human populations. PLoS
Genet. 2, 972979.
Polanski, A., Kimmel, M., Chakraborty, R., 1998. Application of time-dependent
coalescence process for inferring the history of population size changes from
DNA sequence data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 54565461.
Schmitz, R., Bonani, G., Smith, F.H., 2002. New research at the Neanderthal type site
in the Neander Valley of Germany. J. Hum. Evol. 42, A32.
Serré, D., Langaney, A., Chech, M., Teschler-Nicola, M., Paunovic, M., Mennecier, P.,
Hofreiter, M., Possnert, G., Pääbo, S., 2004. No evidence of Neanderthal mtDNA
contribution to early modern humans. PLOS Biol. 2, 313317.
Thompson, R., Pritchard, J., Shen, P., Oefner, P., Feldman, M., 2000. Recent common
ancestry of human Y chromosomes: evidence from DNA sequence data. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 73607365.
Thorne, A., Wolpoff, M.H., 1992. The multiregional evolution of humans. Scientific
American 266, 7683.
Vigilant, L., Stoneking, M., Harpending, H., Hawkes, K., Wilson, A.C., 1991. African
populations and the evolution of human mitochondrial DNA. Science 253,
15031507.
Wilson, A.C., Cann, R.L., 1992. The recent African genesis of humans. Scientific
American 266, 6873.
Wooding, S., Rogers, A., 2000. A pleistocence population X-plosion? Hum. Biol. 72,
693695.
Wooding, S., Rogers, A., 2002. The matrix coalescence and an application to human
single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Genetics 161, 16411650.
Yu, N., Zhao, Z., Fu, Y., Sambuughin, N., Ramsay, M., Jenkins, T., Leskinen, E.,
Patthy, L., Jorde, L., Kuromori, T., Li, W., 2001. Global patterns of human DNA
sequence variation in a 10-kb region on chromosome 1. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18,
214222.

Yeah, just assumptions.

By the way, it is anonymous reviewers (always) that decide whether a research should be publicised or not. I hardly believe you know how the scientific method works.

It is very offensive to call all scientists liars...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by archaeologist, posted 08-23-2010 4:35 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by archaeologist, posted 08-23-2010 8:18 AM hotjer has not yet responded

    
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 85 (576204)
08-23-2010 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by hotjer
08-23-2010 7:24 AM


i do not think you know your own suystems or just ignore the many articles that expose the problems that permeate them.

you all have shown me that you do not want truth but want your alternatives. i am not going to force you to do anything, i may post from time to time but the idea of discussion is moot because the secualrists only want to hear what they want and they hide behind scientific generalities to make sure they avoid the truth.

the truth is secular science and evolution are wrong. let me know when you want to hear the truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by hotjer, posted 08-23-2010 7:24 AM hotjer has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 08-23-2010 8:50 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Nij, posted 08-23-2010 8:56 AM archaeologist has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18494
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 30 of 85 (576206)
08-23-2010 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by archaeologist
08-23-2010 8:18 AM


archaeologist writes:

i do not think you know your own suystems or just ignore the many articles that expose the problems that permeate them.

I think what people are looking for is the evidence that would support your claims. For example, in an earlier message you said this:

archaeologist writes:

you mean the same peer review system where scientists do not replicate experiments, do not read the reports or papers sent them, is easily manipulated, biased, prejudiced and does not confirm anything about the original report?

What people would like to know is how you know that "scientists do not replicate experiments?" How were you able to discover that scientists "do not read the reports or papers sent them" for peer review. Where is your evidence that the peer review system is "easily manipulated, biased and prejudiced." And how do you reconcile the apparent contradiction between science's outstanding record of success and these profound failures.

This issue of failing to support your claims is a common problem in your messages. You're fairly clear about what you believe but not very good at providing the evidence and rationale that might convince people that they should believe as you do. Hotjer provided evidence that the original paper is thickly supported by references, which is not consistent with your claims. A valid rebuttal would consist of counter-evidence and argument, but you didn't do that. You instead engaged in ad hominem by accusing Hotjer of "not knowing your own systems or just ignoring the many articles exposing the problems," and of not wanting the truth.

Maybe God is all-knowing, but here on Earth we mere mortals must support our claims with evidence and rational argument.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by archaeologist, posted 08-23-2010 8:18 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019