Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
67 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (2 members, 65 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,243 Year: 4,355/6,534 Month: 569/900 Week: 93/182 Day: 0/27 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1309
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 31 of 95 (892115)
02-26-2022 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jzyehoshua
02-25-2022 9:01 PM


Re: Male & Female
As a bare minimum, go to Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

Give it a read, get your head around it. It's real and spectacularly widespread. Not to mention totally uncaused by mankind.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jzyehoshua, posted 02-25-2022 9:01 PM Jzyehoshua has taken no action

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8492
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 32 of 95 (892116)
02-26-2022 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jzyehoshua
02-25-2022 9:01 PM


Re: Male & Female
Jxy writes:

rare cases of virgin births

Evidence please

Unnatural homosexual activity in nature,

How can behaviour in nature be unatural?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jzyehoshua, posted 02-25-2022 9:01 PM Jzyehoshua has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 33 of 95 (892124)
02-26-2022 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jzyehoshua
02-25-2022 9:01 PM


Re: Male & Female
If by asexual you mean rare cases of virgin births which could be viewed as vindicating the Bible rather than disproving it.

No one is talking about virgin births.

Unnatural homosexual activity in nature, as well as intersex genitalia,

This is a contradiction in terms, there is no such thing as unnatural nature. And intersex genitalia is something you just made up.

mankind's alteration of the environment and/or life with artificial sex hormones known as xenoestrogens and xenoandrogens.

We were wondering what happened to you.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jzyehoshua, posted 02-25-2022 9:01 PM Jzyehoshua has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5073
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 34 of 95 (892130)
02-26-2022 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jzyehoshua
02-25-2022 9:01 PM


Re: Male & Female
Since evolution is biological, it would help to have some knowledge of biology, even if only at a high school biology level.


DISCLAIMER: Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) led to the striking down of the anti-evolution "monkey laws" and basing the barring of teaching evolution on religious reasons. That led to the creation of "creation science" as a legalistic deception deliberately designed to deceive the courts and the public (their standard basic lie: "We oppose evolution for purely scientific reasons. Religion has nothing to do with it."). That "creation science" deception (AKA the game of "Hiding the Bible") was exposed as being religious in nature in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), at which point the anti-evolution movement shifted to a new deception, "Intelligent Design", their new game of "Hide the Creationism."

I'm referring to my own high school biology class experience in 1967. That was a few years before the genesis of the "creation science" deception. Creationist efforts tend to concentrate on attacking biology class, so I do not know what the current state of high school biology class is. Perhaps we should instead recommend at least a community college level biology class.

 

If by asexual you mean rare cases of virgin births which could be viewed as vindicating the Bible rather than disproving it.

Please do follow vimesey's advice in Message 31 and read up on what asexual reproduction is (same Wikipedia link as his).

Basically (not to replace you following that link), asexual reproduction groups together all the natural forms of reproduction that are not sexual.

Sexual reproduction involves the fusion of gametes (AKA "germ cells") provided by individuals of different genders (though some cases (eg, certain worms) individuals can be of both genders). Gametes are produced by meiosis which produces incomplete cells; eg, in mammals the ovum is almost complete except that it contains only half of the chromosomes in its nucleus and the sperm is a polar body, basically just a nucleus with half the chromosomes). By fusing with each other the gametes become a zygote which then grows into an embryo and fetus.

Again, asexual reproduction is basically other forms of reproduction which are not sexual, of which there are many. The most commonly known form is cell fission which uses mitosis to make a duplicate of all the chromosomes in the nucleus and then pull both copies to opposite sides as the cell splits in half to form two cells. That is how unicellular micro-organisms reproduce.

Fission is also how our own body cells reproduce; hence sexual reproduction only entails the formation of the zygote, after which it's all asexual reproduction through fission. However, keep this from getting too messy (a notable characteristic of biology which is squishy, wet, messy, and very complicated), we normally use the asexual/sexual dichotomy to describe how one generation of organisms produces offspring (and not how those offspring then develop).

We should also note that that asexual/sexual dichotomy is by no means pure. We cannot divide all organisms into separate sexual and asexual pigeonholes, because many species use both -- refer to the Alternation between sexual and asexual reproduction section in that link to asexual reproduction. Reproduction is not cleanly delineated into black and white, but rather there are a great many gray cats in the dark. Even just plant reproduction will blow your mind! That will also put the kibosh on your strictly biblical classification of basic created kinds, especially in your attempt to classify all plants -- many plants will not fit in your biblical pigeonholes so you will need a much bigger pigeonhole labeled, "None of the above." Read up on it.

One of the forms of asexual reproduction is parthenogenesis, AKA "virgin birth." Basically, it hijacks sexual reproduction by enabling a female to produce a fertile ovum instead of the usual infertile ovum produced by meiosis. We observe it occurring naturally in some worms, insects, crustaceans, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and birds. It does not occur naturally in mammals but it has been induced in the lab, eg with mice. Something like it has been induced in the lab with human cells.

Since you would want to seize upon parthenogenesis to help explain away Jesus' Virgin Birth, that would present you with a problem. You see, the fertile ovum that the female produces and which thus becomes a zygote contains only the mother's genome, which means that the offspring thus created is a clone of the mother. That would include her gender, though in some species the gender of the offspring can change depending on the conditions under which it incubates (eg, alligator gender being affected by the temperature of the eggs). In the case of all the mammals in these experiments, all the offspring are female.

So using parthenogenesis to explain away Jesus' Virgin Birth would necessitate that she had been a clone of Mother Mary, therefore a woman. Let's call her Jessica. Strange that the New Testament had covered up that fact.

So parthenogenesis does not vindicate the Bible, but rather creates huge problems for your theology of a kind you had never seen before. Be careful what you ask for, because you just might receive it.

 

... vindicating the Bible rather than disproving it.

What the hell are you talking about?

Whatever is the Bible supposed to have to do with any of this, outside of your clutching at parthenogenesis under the illusion that it provides support to your theology? We're talking biology here, not theology!

And why do you think any of this is an attempt to disprove the Bible? What are you basing that on? Obviously you are proceeding from a set of assumptions which are very mistaken, judging by the very strange conclusions you (plural, since this is so typical of almost all the creationists I've encountered since the mid-1980's). But neither you nor any other creationist I've encountered will tell us what those assumptions are, let alone be willing to discuss them.

So what are your unspoken assumptions that led to your statement quoted immediately above?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jzyehoshua, posted 02-25-2022 9:01 PM Jzyehoshua has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 35 of 95 (892169)
03-01-2022 11:32 AM


Speed of Light?
The Light Time Problem
God_Save_the_Scene writes:

Does anyone have a scientific hypothesis that would explain the seemingly contradictory principles of starlight and a 6000 year old universe?

Yep, we do, the Universe is so huge that it takes light billions of years to reach us from the stars in distant galaxies and a bunch of goat herders in the Middle East a few thousand years ago, who didn't know anything about anything, wrote a fictional story about how the Earth and the Universe were created 6000 years ago.

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 36 of 95 (892208)
03-02-2022 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jzyehoshua
02-25-2022 9:01 PM


Re: Male & Female
Jzyehoshua writes:

If by asexual you mean rare cases of virgin births which could be viewed as vindicating the Bible rather than disproving it.

We mean asexual, not parthenogenesis. The vast majority of organisms on Earth reproduce by making clones of themselves. No sex involved. Have you heard of bacteria?

There are also hermaphroditic species. These are species where each individual has both sperm and eggs. A classic example is the common earthworm. When earthworms mate they both exchange sperm, and they use that sperm to fertilize their eggs.

Earthworms | National Wildlife Federation

In fact, some of the most basal living vertebrates are also hermaphrodites.

https://www.thoughtco.com/...vae%20look%20like%20a%20tadpole.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jzyehoshua, posted 02-25-2022 9:01 PM Jzyehoshua has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5073
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 37 of 95 (892209)
03-02-2022 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jzyehoshua
02-25-2022 9:01 PM


Re: Jessica H Christ!
I did a little research on Jzyehoshua and have noticed a pattern which appears to be playing out yet again. Part of the reason for that was that he had been gone for so long and hadn't posted much when he was here that I couldn't remember him.

He was last here in 2012, nearly a full decade ago. Before that he posted in 2010 before disappearing for two years. The pattern that I saw was that he would post one or two messages in a topic and then disappear from that topic in order to avoid having to engage in discussion. And it appears that he's still playing that same game, so I very much doubt that he will ever revisit this topic to reply to us. For that matter, he might have just disappeared for another decade.

This time around, though, he has created a wiki which has one page on creationism (though it does link to other of his pages):

Why I disagree with evolution, explained:
https://biblestrength.net/wiki/Creationism

It's primarily a collection of PRATTs (including that real stinker, human population growth), though he did put a lot of work into collecting them and does present them better than almost all other creationists such that the stench of the lies is not as immediately apparent.

And of course, even though his here-stated purpose (see qs box above) is to oppose evolution and he uses the word "evolution" in various forms 253 times on his creationism page, he never once addresses evolution!. The closest he ever gets is to present the standard "dichotomy" between "microevolution and macroevolution". For example:

quote:
Microevolution is in essence compatible with Genesis 1, since Genesis 1 repeatedly states that God created core categories of life which brought forth after their kinds (Heb. miyn) or species. A Young Earth Creationist believes there were core categories of life which adapted to their environments to become the varieties of life we see today. Thus, Natural Selection, adaptation, and speciation are all perfectly acceptable concepts to the Creationist, who believes life has evolved within God-created categories rather than between from a common ancestor.

Macroevolution is the theory Darwin proposed in On the Origin of Species, namely that "each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species."[7] Evolutionists infer from Microevolution, Natural Selection, and speciation, that all life came from a common ancestor. Thus Macroevolution is the theory that life evolves BETWEEN core categories of life (e.g. dogs/canines, cats/felines, horses/equines) rather than WITHIN those categories.


So he appears to be invoking that tired old lie of evolution requiring that dogs give birth to kittens even though evolution does not make any claim anywhere close to that, but if that were ever to happen then that would disprove evolution and almost all of biology.

In this, he is so sadly typical of creationists: despite

Similarly, he tries to "disprove" radiometric dating methods without making the glaring mistakes of other creationists. For example, for radiocarbon dating he not only doesn't bring up the issue of trace amounts of C14 being found in coal and diamonds, but he even does mention non-atmospheric sources of C14 (only atmospheric C14 has anything to do with radiocarbon dating methods). But then a decade or so back on this forum, he was trying to argue for the decay rates changing by citing instances for the production rates changing -- not the same thing, not even close to the same thing! I cannot tell whether he has realized that yet, a decade later.

As for his use of the human population growth claim (refer to my 1991 CompuServe article, THE BUNNY BLUNDER or What's Up, Doc Morris?), he puts in a lot of effort to arrive at a "reasonable" growth rate, but he still plugs that rate into a the wrong math model, a pure-birth model! Creationist human population growth claims, including Jzyehoshua's, all rely on ignoring the simple fact of any environment's ability to support a population of a given size (accounted for by the logistic model of population growth -- if a given region cannot support more than 100 people, then even after a million years of population growth we could not expect to find more than 100 people there, whereas creationists would expect (and have stated so very explicity) living humans living there stacked hundreds of feet deep (creationists have even claimed that if the earth were old then the solar system would be filled with people out to the orbit of Pluto -- no, that could never be the case because they would have all died long before that point! Idiots!).

Jessica H. Christ! What is wrong with these people?

 


 

BTW, have you ever wondered why "H"? After seeing the initials "JHC" deliberately decorating the walls of a chapel in Cádiz, Spain, I decided to research that question. It appears to be all about the religious artform, the Christogram, constructed out of letters from the Greek, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ . Refer to my page, "Jesus H. Christ": Why "H"?.

Edited by dwise1, : Corrected spelling of Cádiz. EmPHAsis on the wrong sylLAble.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jzyehoshua, posted 02-25-2022 9:01 PM Jzyehoshua has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 03-03-2022 3:08 PM dwise1 has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 38 of 95 (892238)
03-03-2022 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by dwise1
03-02-2022 2:39 PM


Re: Jessica H Christ!
dwise1 writes:

Jessica H. Christ! What is wrong with these people?

A combination of a lack of curiosity, entrenched ignorance, and tribalism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by dwise1, posted 03-02-2022 2:39 PM dwise1 has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 39 of 95 (892567)
03-10-2022 12:58 PM


Finally, we are going get the real deal
We are eagerly awaiting the summary of the falsification, but I suspect all we will get is the link in the opening post.

EVOLUTION IS FALSIFIED!!!!!!!

This article is subdivided into five main topics:

(Part 1) Realistically, what is really the Theory of Evolution (ToE)?

(Part 2) How did some scientists falsify ToE and what are the invented falsification criteria for Biological Evolution or ToE?

(Part 3) What are the Problems and Inconsistencies of ToE? Why ToE is Wrong?

(Part 4) The correct Scientific Falsification of Theory of Evolution (ToE)

(Part 5) The replacement and its major explanations.

Part 1 should demonstrate whether MrID knows what he's talking about.

Part 2 I wonder if this could be a Precambrian rabbit?

Part 3 Stupid biologists left in all the problems and inconsistencies, who did they think they were fooling?

Part 4 Finally, I can hardly wait.

Part 5 It seems like this part should take care of parts 1-4 all by itself. This is going to tell us how to do biology from now on...

Still hasn't said which journal published the article.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Theodoric, posted 03-10-2022 1:06 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action
 Message 41 by jar, posted 03-10-2022 3:10 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action
 Message 42 by nwr, posted 03-10-2022 3:23 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action
 Message 57 by dwise1, posted 03-10-2022 10:47 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7315
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 40 of 95 (892568)
03-10-2022 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Tanypteryx
03-10-2022 12:58 PM


Re: Finally, we are going get the real deal
I just called my friend the physics professor to tell him to stop teaching as this paper will show all science is wrong. I also toldd my wife, an MD, that everything she learned is wrong. Her degree and all training is worthless.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2022 12:58 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by dwise1, posted 03-10-2022 3:25 PM Theodoric has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33900
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 41 of 95 (892569)
03-10-2022 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Tanypteryx
03-10-2022 12:58 PM


Re: Finally, we are going get the real deal
Interestingly only three journals rejected the article and they all rejected out of fear.

Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Edited by jar, : it seems my spallin is still avalving


My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2022 12:58 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by dwise1, posted 03-10-2022 4:00 PM jar has taken no action

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5972
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 42 of 95 (892570)
03-10-2022 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Tanypteryx
03-10-2022 12:58 PM


Re: Finally, we are going get the real deal
I have started reading his report. I'm at page 13 (of 45)

I'll give some credit -- it is at least readable thus far. But I have not found any science. It appears to be all philosophy -- and not even good philosophy. Perhaps that will change as I continue to read, but I have my doubts about that.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2022 12:58 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5073
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 43 of 95 (892571)
03-10-2022 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Theodoric
03-10-2022 1:06 PM


Re: Finally, we are going get the real deal
I also toldd my wife, an MD, that everything she learned is wrong. Her degree and all training is worthless.

Someone who had gone to medical school described his first lecture. They were informed that half of what they were about to learn in medical school was wrong. Their task was to figure out which half is wrong and which half is right.

Guess that's why, while most people practice until they get it right, MDs have to always practice because they can never get it right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Theodoric, posted 03-10-2022 1:06 PM Theodoric has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 03-12-2022 11:52 AM dwise1 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5073
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 44 of 95 (892572)
03-10-2022 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
03-10-2022 3:10 PM


Re: Finally, we are going get the real deal
Says he on the title page:

quote:
SUBMITTED FOR PEER REVIEW
(from March 7 - 10, 2022)

As a usual ideal process in science, I sent and submitted this science article in three major science journals, but they rejected me. I think they will never allow my article to be published, because of strict professional competition to get a Nobel Prize and to ink his/her own name forever after falsifying and replacing the Theory of Evolution (ToE). I had to stop submitting this article anywhere and directly open this to the public right away, ASAP. To avoid this article to be stolen without my knowledge and to avoid this article to be distorted, I am publishing it now, here in Zenodo. Please, copy the pdf and republish this anywhere possible. Let the whole world know the truth.


DISCLAIMER: the direct copy-and-paste of that text from PDF to text was garbled, especially in the second part in which fragments of the text was reduplicated to ever increasing degrees. As a result, I had to edit it in order to match the original. Since I am not a creationist, I made my best good-faith effort to truthfully present what he had actually written, so I apologize in advance for any inadvertent copy errors.

Oh, we will let the whole world know the truth! But he will not like it!

Part of his task that we demanded of him was that he also submit his "science article" to ID publications and report the response. He does not indicate whether he had done that. I would suggest that the probability of his having avoided doing so rapidly approaches 100%.

We would also want to see what he was told in those rejection letters. I would definitely want to see where they had told him that they wanted to eliminate him as competition in getting their Nobel Prizes.

For that matter, did he even receive any rejection letters? He is stating that he had submitted his "article" and received those rejections over a four day period from 07 to 10 March 2022. That wouldn't even be enough time to mail his submission and their rejections, let alone give them any time to review his submission. I think that he just has not received any response yet and is dishonestly misrepresenting that as official rejections.

We predicted that his entire charade is pure theater in which he set himself up for getting rejected just so that he could make his typical dishonest creationist claims of scientific prejudice against ID and that there's a scientific conspiracy to silence creationist voices. Like Lisa Kudrow's "Trump's Press Secretary" character in Netflix' Death to 2020 who insists that "conservative voices are being silenced", a claim that he has made several times on Fox News and in a number of books that she's written:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 03-10-2022 3:10 PM jar has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Taq, posted 03-10-2022 5:01 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 46 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2022 5:12 PM dwise1 has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 45 of 95 (892573)
03-10-2022 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by dwise1
03-10-2022 4:00 PM


Re: Finally, we are going get the real deal
dwise1 writes:

Says he on the title page:

I don't know if I should laugh or cry. I'm going for laughter.

It's as if he took his used toilet paper over to the Louvre and expected them to hang it on the wall next to the Rembrandts. Hilarious.

I wonder if he has ever read a peer reviewed article before. What would he put in his Methods section?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by dwise1, posted 03-10-2022 4:00 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by dwise1, posted 03-10-2022 5:43 PM Taq has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022