Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2019 10:47 AM
38 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Faith, jar, JonF, ooh-child, Stile, Tanypteryx, vimesey (9 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,287 Year: 15,323/19,786 Month: 2,046/3,058 Week: 420/404 Day: 24/63 Hour: 11/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Coyote
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 24 of 457 (707564)
09-28-2013 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
09-28-2013 2:28 PM


Re: so much for smarts
...evolution has NO bearing on the advances in medicine, that's just an article of faith you guys bow down to.

Ever hear of the essay, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution?" Give it a try:

http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

And your little comment about "an article of faith" is nothing more than projection. Scientists don't need faith--we have evidence. It is those who lack evidence who must rely on faith.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 2:28 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 3:55 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 29 of 457 (707577)
09-28-2013 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
09-28-2013 3:32 PM


Re: so much for smarts
Hey, faith healing does NOT deny germ theory, nor is prayer a denial of it.

There's another way to look at faith healing:

Evolution in Action

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 3:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 32 of 457 (707580)
09-28-2013 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
09-28-2013 3:55 PM


Re: so much for smarts
And your little comment about "an article of faith" is nothing more than projection. Scientists don't need faith--we have evidence. It is those who lack evidence who must rely on faith.

SO funny. That IS your Statement of Faith right there, just another recitation of the Evolutionist Creed. Evolution is NOT supported by the actual evidence, only by the fantasy evidence that exists in your minds.

I have seen and studied the evidence. I did half my Ph.D. work in the fields of fossil man and human osteology.

Deny all you want, but you don't know the evidence. You haven't studied hundreds of casts of the important finds, nor have you had to study many hundred technical papers in preparation for a rigorous qualifying exam.

Rather you uncritically swallow the lies spread by the creationist websites.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 3:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 4:14 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 34 of 457 (707582)
09-28-2013 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
09-28-2013 4:14 PM


Re: so much for smarts
You seem to be unaware of the interpretive scheme you have been educated in that colors how you think about data.

Correct. I have been taught to examine data critically, not just swallow it whole. If things don't fit, a scientist digs in and finds out why.

Creationists, on the other hand, just follow along dogma and deny, ignore, misrepresent, or obfuscate evidence they don't like. The last thing they'll do is follow all the evidence.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 09-28-2013 4:14 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 49 of 457 (707643)
09-29-2013 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
09-29-2013 8:53 PM


Back on topic
You're off topic and...

You want on topic?

How about your claims that genetic diversity decreases and all mutations are deleterious?

If that is the case, please explain how there is more diversity within the protists in the chart below than in all the subsequent species.

And please explain how, over some 3.7 billion years, those deleterious mutations did not accumulate and wipe out everything.

In actual fact, mutations are changes, of which some are deleterious, some neutral, and a few beneficial. The deleterious mutations do not tend to propagate to subsequent generations, the neutral ones usually don't matter, while the beneficial ones do tend to propagate.

3.7 billion years is a lot of time for mutations to occur and to increase genetic diversity through speciation. In fact, this is what we see.

And 3.7 billion years would have been more than sufficient time for deleterious mutations to accumulate and wipe out all life. Clearly that didn't happen.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it--as would a few tens of thousands of biologists and other scientists.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 09-29-2013 8:53 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 09-29-2013 11:27 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 51 of 457 (707654)
09-29-2013 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
09-29-2013 11:27 PM


Re: Back on topic
You have reaffirmed my faith in creationists.

Your post contains nothing but claims which have long since been disproved by science, liberally mixed with misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

I don't have all evening to explain all of these to you, and you wouldn't accept them anyway.

So I'll just wish you a good evening.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 09-29-2013 11:27 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 3:24 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 60 of 457 (707723)
09-30-2013 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
09-30-2013 3:24 PM


Re: Back on topic
It is because of this natural inevitable principle of population genetics that it is impossible for any breed or race or variety to vary beyond the parameters of the genome of the species or kind.

At the heart of your argument is the claim that no new mutations arise. That is clearly not the case

Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005

Scientists said yesterday that they have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife.

The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races.

...

In fact, several scientists said, the new work shows just how small a biological difference is reflected by skin color. The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being.

...

The work raises a raft of new questions -- not least of which is why white skin caught on so thoroughly in northern climes once it arose. Some scientists suggest that lighter skin offered a strong survival advantage for people who migrated out of Africa by boosting their levels of bone-strengthening vitamin D; others have posited that its novelty and showiness simply made it more attractive to those seeking mates.

The work also reveals for the first time that Asians owe their relatively light skin to different mutations. That means that light skin arose independently at least twice in human evolution, in each case affecting populations with the facial and other traits that today are commonly regarded as the hallmarks of Caucasian and Asian races.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../12/15/AR2005121501728.html

This article shows clearly that you are wrong. The mutation for light skin occurred in two different populations, and in two different ways. This is not an expression of something that was there earlier but a mutation which led to new characteristics.

There are many other such examples. The mutation which permitted high-altitude adaptation occurred in three different populations, and was different in each case (Tibetans, Ethiopians, and Peruvians). Those mutations are not present in earlier populations.

Your claims are clearly not based on scientific findings.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 3:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 67 of 457 (707737)
09-30-2013 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
09-30-2013 8:04 PM


A few definitions to help you out
Golly gee those charts are referred to as FACTS! That sure does set the fantasy in concrete doesn't it?

Science does its best to speak and write precisely, so as to avoid misunderstanding. If you are going to use scientific terms here in the Science Forum perhaps you should understand what is meant by those terms.

Here are some definitions that might help you out:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.

Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can be considered a fact.

Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not be able to play"

Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.

Observation: any information collected with the senses.

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

Note: it is not necessary that you agree with the facts, but unless you can provide evidence that they are inaccurate, that's the way to bet.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 8:04 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 8:21 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 70 of 457 (707740)
09-30-2013 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Faith
09-30-2013 8:15 PM


Re: Back on topic
Science makes planes.
Evo fantasy is not science.
Evo makes absolutely nothing, it just keeps people's brains in chains.

Hey that rhymes.

God taught us science, we thank God for science. Evolution is not science.

Evolution: anything a creationist disagrees with.

By the way I hardly ever read links or watch embedded videos, just so you know.

Here is a great one for you to ignore then:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture):

Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 09-30-2013 8:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 78 of 457 (707751)
09-30-2013 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by frako
09-30-2013 9:27 PM


Re: Back on topic
The verry second you accept mutation you have to accept evolution.

But he doesn't accept mutation--he sees that as a "disease process" which is all but universally deleterious.

Silly, but that's what he believes.

And he isn't about to change his belief no matter what evidence you provide.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 9:27 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 9:52 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 89 of 457 (707829)
10-01-2013 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ringo
10-01-2013 12:18 PM


Re: Back on topic
You're misusing the word "theorizing". Theorizing involves testing so it shouldn't be associated with speculating or fantisizing. Theorizing is not the same as treating something as if it was real but it does explain what is real.

Faith doesn't seem to care what the technical definitions of terms like "theorizing" really are. I think this stems from the creationists' silly efforts to denigrate evolution by calling it "just a theory."

I posted good definitions for all of these terms upthread in Message 67. Those definitions have clearly been ignored.

Ignorance is sad. Willful ignorance is disgraceful!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ringo, posted 10-01-2013 12:18 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Diomedes, posted 10-01-2013 1:03 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 3:08 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 3:10 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 94 of 457 (707839)
10-01-2013 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Faith
10-01-2013 1:09 PM


Re: Back on topic
But as Coyote affirmed, most such mutations ARE deleterious, many others do nothing that anyone can determine for sure, and very very very few can be said to have any beneficial function.

The deleterious mutations are generally flushed out of the population, while the beneficial ones are generally retained. That makes quite a difference.

And it is not "very very very few." It is enough to provide genetic diversity and, aided by natural selection, speciation.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 1:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 1:27 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 143 of 457 (707901)
10-01-2013 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Faith
10-01-2013 9:06 PM


My summary
As I said, the ToE is successful because it is purely imaginary and can't be effectively challenged for that reason. It is purely imaginary because it deals with the unwitnessed past which means you can make up just about anything you like about it without fear of being shown to be wrong. There's always a way to imagine yourself out of any issue. Just make a chart to "prove" yourself right.

This is absolutely incorrect. You have let your belief overcome all reason, evidence, and logic. That's not an admirable trait. In fact, denial of what is demonstratable in the real world is foolhardy. Try denying an oncoming train and see how far you get. (Actually, you could get quite far, but you probably wouldn't enjoy it very much).

I have seen the fossil evidence supporting the theory of evolution--you haven't. I spent several years reading the literature and studying the casts of all the major specimens and many of the lesser ones while preparing for my Ph.D. exams. In this field, your opinion is based on belief, instead of evidence, and is worth nothing. You're like the apocryphal King Cnut trying to hold back the waves with nothing but words. In your case those words are made from whole cloth, as you seem to be willing to deny any evidence without even reading it and certainly without thinking about it.

Everything I've argued on this thread is about facts in the real world, not about the Bible and not something I made up.

Not so. What you are claiming is contradicted by scientific evidence from stem to stern. What you can't misrepresent from the scientific literature you just make up from your belief. If something goes against your belief you are sure it has to be wrong, and you don't much care if your claims are internally consistent, supported by any real-world evidence, or even possible. If you can make the counter claim, to you that counts as a refutation of any evidence you disagree with, no matter how silly it actually is. That may be appropriate adherence to dogma and good apologetics, but it is the exact opposite of science.

I guess you can use an imaginary system to "make successful predictions" because after all the fulfillment of those predictions is entirely a matter of imaginatively interpreting something to fit the theory anyway.

In science, a model is a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes. It is a representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process, and in so doing provide feedback on the evidence and assumptions that went into the creation of that model. Simplified, it is "If x is true, then we will see y and z under these conditions." If y and z are seen as predicted the model is supported, else it is refuted.

Expand that several thousand times and add all the data dealing with evolution. The model of evolution is supported in all relevant cases, and is not refuted in any relevant cases. When this happens the model can be elevated to the level of a theory. But that theory is continually tested against existing and new data. Unfortunately for your side, the theory of evolution has passed all of those tests and has successfully made predictions about what should be found if the theory is correct. That suggests that the theory of evolution is accurate. Your model has been found wanting, as it not only fails to make accurate predictions but also is contracted by vast amounts of relevant evidence.

You can quibble and equivocate all you want, but that changes nothing.

Fortunately all of biology does not rely on evolutionary thinking. That too is a tenet of the ToE faith. Oh the ToE is invoked quite frequently and there's plenty of "research" done in its name, and biologists like everybody else are unfortunately steeped in the lore of the ToE so it's impossibly to avoid it, but fortunately most of that doesn't impact anything that matters in the real world. To the extent that it does impact reality, however, biology is going to start veering off into neverneverland at that point.

That is your belief, but it is not supported by facts. I assume you remember the phrase, and essay, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" that I referred you to yesterday. That is still true today. And it will remain "true" until evidence is provided to the contrary. Your "what-ifs" and denials do not constitute evidence. In fact, your grasp of science, from its terminology to its methodology to its findings seems to be either remarkably weak or totally uninformed.

I have not at any point in this discussion rejected the ToE "on religious grounds."

Sure you have. No one but religious fundamentalists holds beliefs similar to yours. If one looks at the evidence, from any culture in the world, one winds up at the same findings that have been arrived at by scientists. But if one starts with certain fundamentalists beliefs, with a great deal of effort one can ignore, deny, obfuscate, misrepresent and otherwise twist the evidence to come up with your beliefs. Its not easy to do, as those beliefs have so little connection to the real world that they simply cannot be arrived at from the evidence. They can only be arrived at through religious beliefs, so your claims to be doing science are patently false.

What's remarkable is that very few have bothered to address what I HAVE said, which is based on actual biological fact: You can't get new species without a reduction in genetic diversity, you simply cannot, it cannot happen; that means that reality goes the wrong direction for the ToE to be true. If you DO get increased genetic diversity for whatever reason, mutations, gene flow, hybridization, whatever, then you do not get new species, which is the other way reality goes the wrong direction for the ToE to be true. Either way reality defeats evolution. All the earnest testimonials, encomiums, paeans to "scientific method" and the wondrous success of the ToE, are belied by this simple biological fact.

This has been explained to you a number of times, but you simply refuse to look at what happens in the real world. Look at speciation as a fork in the road (actually a "Y"). From a narrow base there is a divergence as diversity increases through time and/or distance! There is no way you can realistically claim that overall diversity decreases! Look just at the higher primates. From a single common ancestor you end up with gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orangs, and humans. That's increased diversity no matter what you claim!

But you will have to deny this because the results contradict your religious beliefs. And of course you will continue to deny, misrepresent, obfuscate, or otherwise try to hand-wave away all of this evidence, just as you do with the rest of the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

Sure, I guess I can go on repeating my points since you require it of me.

This is where we came in. Go ahead and just hand-wave it all away. Your hand-waving means nothing in the real world.

But if you're honest you'll end each of your posts with, "Amen!" because all you're really doing is preaching.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 9:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 190 of 457 (708042)
10-03-2013 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Faith
10-03-2013 10:38 PM


Re: Back on topic
Interesting how dictionaries can be written to prove anything, such as that mutations are mere "variant forms that may be transmitted to future generations." The ToE requires that it be so, therefore it is so. No such thing has REALLY been proven but they can now just define it into existence so that it convinces people that it has been. Pure word magic. Whoever has the power runs the show. It sure isn't truth and reality running the show.

Actually you and the other creationists are trying to define various scientific terms out of existence, or to give them entirely different meanings.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 10-03-2013 10:38 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:43 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 195 of 457 (708047)
10-04-2013 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
10-04-2013 12:43 AM


What's wrong!
Actually you and the other creationists are trying to define various scientific terms out of existence, or to give them entirely different meanings.

Of course we are and it's a struggle against the evolutionist definitions which don't define things as we define them. Just to convey the simplest things requires me to qualify and qualify to try to get free of the evolutionist assumptions.

Why in the world would scientists, and those who make dictionaries, try to limit their definitions to what creationists prefer?

Creationists are like fleas thinking they are directing the dog where to go and what to do!

Science is going ahead whether you say yea or nay, following the evidence where it leads. You can stand there like King Cnut trying to hold back the tide with words, but without evidence to support your claims you aren't going to get anywhere.

And what use are beliefs contradicted by real-world evidence, anyway? Creationists put the Red Queen to shame: she could only manage to believe six impossible things before breakfast!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 12:43 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 10-04-2013 1:09 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019