In one man's opinion, Mr. Meert has the best approach for dealing with people who devoutly believe in creationism. After all these years, this is unfortunate. At least in this Century, we can have the debate without the creationists killing us. They used to kill scientists, you know. (Creationist humor.)" --Creationist humor, eh? Too bad it isn't funny..
"The evidence for evolution is everywhere. One just has to be inventive enough to know what he is looking at. --Ie, a direction of interpretation.
"Remember the colds and flu that most of us get several times during our lives? Well, rhino viruses........ evolve. The reason they evolve is because we evolve to beat their infection method. it takes place by a natural selection method. Your favorite creationist has caught a cold and accidentally sneezes in the face of a fellow creationist. The 2,000 base pairs in the DNA of this particular strain of cold virus is new to his body. Grevious infection begins. His immune system rushes trial and error antibodies through tests to find out which molecular binding mechanism works best with the protein coat around this new DNA. It gets hits in the tests. 100's of billions of copies of the newly minted antibody are hurriedly made. This takes about 2-3 days. The antibodies bind to the fresh viri and incapacitate them faster than the viri can infect new cells and incubate new copies of themselves. The tide turns. This virus lost the evolutionary/natural selection race to the creationist's immune system. But, lurking in back channels is a virus that mutated a base pair and formed a slightly different protein coat. While it has to lie low in this anti-evolution creationist, all it takes is a sneeze and.... This is a continuous process of natural selection that started with the first virus and ends when there are no more humans the virus can find. Evolution." --That's nice, doesn't play much significance, however, in the long run.
"I wonder if Mr. John Paul thinks god created dinosuar bones without dinosaur flesh around them? --I'm not JP, so you'd have to ask him.
"Were there dinosaurs on the ark?" --Yup.
"I think we all know that dinosaurs were never mentioned in any book of the bible." --Could you read it first please?
"How do creationists resolve the fact that their myths are predated by and promulgated from those of the Assyrians? --I don't think thats a fact axial.
"There was no first human." --According to your interpretation, there may not have been, according to me, your wrong.
"There was a series of steps in the transition between the animal that looked australopithecine and the one that looked H. neanderthalansis. Like the evolving virus. Now there is us." --See above.
"It is hard for me to believe that an alien created us by intelligent design, or life in general, when life develops all by itself through chemical processes." --Okedoky, its hard for me too.
"Evolution is real." --No problem there.
"The process of natural selection that fuels it began with the beginning of our solar system, in space." --Sorta.
"Creationists are in for an even bumpier ride." --I must be a good driver.
"How about this: http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=1779 Mars once had oceans. Titan still does. Anthrax spores have survived in Antarctica for 90 years: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/22/tech/main515899.shtml There is a reference to the discovery in a US lab of how to make viruses by the vat. I will be on the look-out for that for a different reason. Making life is learning to control chemical processes. The only mystery is that some people choose not to try and understand the step-by-step process scientists and engineers use when they do something new. --Still, no problem.
--BTW, I take the perspective of the YEC and welcome to the forum.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation: [B]--Creationist humor, eh? Too bad it isn't funny...[/quote]
No it isn't; but accurate.
quote:--That's nice, doesn't play much significance, however, in the long run.
It must be nice to be able to dismiss the evidence with a magic wand.
quote:"Were there dinosaurs on the ark?" --Yup.
You're joking. The ark, had it ever existed, wouldn't have been big enough to hold two of all of the currently living critters, much less all of the extinct ones.
quote:"I think we all know that dinosaurs were never mentioned in any book of the bible." --Could you read it first please?
I've read it. Didn't see no dinosaurs.
quote:"How do creationists resolve the fact that their myths are predated by and promulgated from those of the Assyrians? --I don't think thats a fact axial.
Don't know your comparative mythology do ya?
quote:"There was no first human." --According to your interpretation, there may not have been, according to me, your wrong.
But all you have for evidence is a book of fairy-tales.
quote:"There was a series of steps in the transition between the animal that looked australopithecine and the one that looked H. neanderthalansis. Like the evolving virus. Now there is us." --See above.
You mean up where you dismiss the evidence?
[quote][b]"How about this: http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=1779 Mars once had oceans. Titan still does. Anthrax spores have survived in Antarctica for 90 years: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/22/tech/main515899.shtml There is a reference to the discovery in a US lab of how to make viruses by the vat. I will be on the look-out for that for a different reason. Making life is learning to control chemical processes. The only mystery is that some people choose not to try and understand the step-by-step process scientists and engineers use when they do something new. --Still, no problem. [/quote]
Sounds like you just admitted to abiogenesis? Life is just chemistry.
One of my Favorite Flaws --Even crude mathematical models can demonstrate (and can be field-tested) that any species wishing to evolve significantly (into another species) would require a time period of at least one quadrillion years, a body length of one or fewer centimeters, and a generation cycle of no more than three months. Biology is more fun than math (to me), but it leaves excess room for debate (which is also fun).
Hmmmmm- crude being the operative word here? And does this mean that SLPx accepts that very small organisms can evolve into other species? Better than nothing I guess....
quote:Originally posted by John Paul: SLP: I even feel bad that you get spanked so hard on BB so often.
John Paul: When and if that ever happens I might feel bad too.
The incompetent rarely know it, often are even boastful, study finds
By Erica Goode NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
January 18, 2000
Thomas Jefferson's assertion that "he who knows best knows how little he knows" now has some scientific support.
According to a Cornell University study, most incompetent people do not know that they are incompetent.
On the contrary. People who do things badly usually are supremely confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact, than people who do things well, according to the findings of Dr. David A. Dunning, a psychology professor.
One reason that the ignorant tend to be the blissfully self-assured is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize competence, said Dunning, whose research was conducted with the assistance of a graduate student, Justin Kruger.
The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, the researchers suggested in a paper appearing in the December issue of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
"Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it," wrote Dunning and Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of Illinois.
This deficiency in "self-monitoring skills," the researchers said, helps explain the tendency of the humor-impaired to persist in telling jokes that are not funny, of day traders to repeatedly jump into the market -- and repeatedly lose out -- and of the politically clueless to continue holding forth at dinner parties on the fine points of campaign strategy.
Some college students, Dunning said, evince a similar blindness: after doing badly on a test, they spend hours in his office explaining why the answers he suggests for the test questions are wrong.
In a series of studies, Kruger and Dunning tested their theory of incompetence. They found that subjects who scored in the lowest quartile on tests of logic, English grammar and humor also were the most likely to "grossly overestimate" how well they had performed.
In all three tests, subjects' ratings of their ability were positively linked to their actual scores. But the lowest-ranked participants showed much greater distortions in their self-estimates.
Asked to evaluate their performance on the test of logical reasoning, for example, subjects who scored in the 12th percentile guessed that they had scored in the 62nd percentile and deemed their overall skill at logical reasoning to be at the 68th percentile.
Similarly, subjects who scored at the 10th percentile on the grammar test ranked themselves at the 67th percentile in the ability to "identify grammatically correct standard English" and estimated their test scores to be at the 61st percentile.
On the humor test, in which participants were asked to rate jokes according to their funniness (subjects' ratings were matched against those of an "expert" panel of professional comedians), low-scoring subjects also were more likely to have an inflated perception of their skill. But because humor is idiosyncratically defined, the researchers said, the results were less conclusive.
Unlike their unskilled counterparts, the most able subjects in the study, Kruger and Dunning found, were likely to underestimate their own competence. The researchers attributed this to the fact that, in the absence of information about how others were doing, highly competent subjects assumed that others were performing as well as they were -- a phenomenon psychologists term the "false consensus effect."
When high-scoring subjects were asked to "grade" the grammar tests of their peers, however, they quickly revised their evaluations of their own performance. In contrast, the self-assessments of those who scored badly themselves were unaffected by the experience of grading others; some subjects even further inflated their estimates of their own abilities.
"Incompetent individuals were less able to recognize competence in others," the researchers concluded.
In a final experiment, Dunning and Kruger set out to discover whether training would help modify the exaggerated self-perceptions of incapable subjects. In fact, a short training session in logical reasoning did improve the ability of low-scoring subjects to assess their performance, they found.
The research meshes neatly with other work indicating that overconfidence is common; studies have found, for example, that the vast majority of people rate themselves as "above average" on a wide array of abilities -- though such an abundance of talent would be impossible in statistical terms. And this overestimation, studies indicate, is more likely for tasks that are difficult than for those that are easy.
Such studies are not without critics. Dr. David Funder, a psychology professor at the University of California Riverside, for example, said he suspected that most lay people had only a vague idea of the meaning of "average" in statistical terms.
"I'm not sure the average person thinks of 'average' or 'percentile' in quite that literal a sense," Funder said, "so 'above average' might mean to them 'pretty good,' or 'OK,' or 'doing all right.' And if, in fact, people mean something subjective when they use the word, then it's really hard to evaluate whether they're right or wrong using the statistical criterion."
But Dunning said his research and other studies indicated that there were many reasons why people would tend to overestimate their competency, and not be aware of it.
In some cases, Dunning pointed out, an awareness of one's own inability is inevitable: "In a golf game, when your ball is heading into the woods, you know you're incompetent," he said.
But in other situations, feedback is absent, or at least more ambiguous; even a humorless joke, for example, is likely to be met with polite laughter. And, faced with incompetence, social norms prevent most people from blurting out, "You stink!" -- truthful though this assessment may be.
All of which inspired in Dunning and his co-author, in presenting their research to the public, a certain degree of nervousness.
"This article may contain faulty logic, methodological errors or poor communication," they cautioned in their journal report. "Let us assure our readers that to the extent this article is imperfect, it is not a sin we have committed knowingly."
John Paul writes: That would mean SLP can never be trusted. I exposed his lies and misrepresentations so many times I lost count. ... I have no doubt that you missed it. All that shows is you are pathological and have no shame.
This style is unacceptable here. Your posting privileges are suspended for the next 48 hours. Please follow the Forum Guidelines in the future.