tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post4397911520100191366..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Who's Ignorant?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91860001826880258092008-05-12T14:26:00.000-04:002008-05-12T14:26:00.000-04:00Mary said: "It is not unthinkable for a few pairs ...Mary said: "It is not unthinkable for a few pairs of bugs (which don't take up much room anyway LOL) to expand out into a million different species".<BR/><BR/>Mary, you *do* realize that you just validated your belief that evolution is capable of creating new species?Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12193941136059651535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86295782579852216832008-05-12T14:12:00.000-04:002008-05-12T14:12:00.000-04:00Mary,It is not unthinkable for a few pairs of bugs...Mary,<BR/><BR/><I>It is not unthinkable for a few pairs of bugs (which don't take up much room anyway LOL) to expand out into a million different species, just beetles alone at that.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you arguing that a single breeding pair of beetles was able to evolve fast enough to create a million different species in under 10,000 years? Have you paused to consider what implications this would have for observations of these species over the last 300 years?<BR/><BR/>It's this combination of rejecting evolution and yet subscribing to a hyper-evolution which makes the YEC position so insane. It isn't even internally consistent and, I think, is only sustainable through a deep ignorance of the subject matter. If you had any understanding of the differences between different beetle species, I doubt you could hold to this position.<BR/><BR/><I>But they're all still beetles; they are not for example turning into arachnids. You can call it "evolution", sure, but that depends on your definition of the word.</I><BR/><BR/>We're using the scientific, biological definition which says that once you are a beetle, your descendents will always be beetles. That's why all mammals give birth to other mammals, all chordates give birth to other chordates, all primates give birth to other primates. Through time, you can end up with refinements - branches on branches - but you never ever jump from one branch to another. That you should imagine that 'evolution' would ever say such a thing demonstrates, yet again, that you have no clue what evolution actually means.<BR/><BR/><I>Reshuffling of existing genes can cause change but it does NOT create new genes. It only distributes information that is already there.</I><BR/><BR/>Changes in a gene results in, wait for it, <I>new genes</I>!<BR/><BR/>(And don't talk about information - I can tell already you don't understand what information is.)<BR/><BR/><I>I'm sure that my heavily-evolution-centered professor from Malaspina Univerity-College would be thrilled to hear that, not to mention the heavily-evolution-pushing Biology teachers at my high school. ;) And as we all know, Canadian Education > American, so I KNOW you got a less-than adequate education to mine for sure. :P</I><BR/><BR/>I've been through the BC school system and I know just how little evolution is taught so don't try to bluff your way around. <BR/><BR/>For our US readers who associate "College" with "University", all major post-secondary academic institutions in Canada are Universities. Colleges are what we use to slowly transition small town people into the harsh reality of academia. They have community courses and a smattering of 100-level courses that can be used for University credit.<BR/><BR/>If you aren't listing a real University like UVic, UBC or even SFU, I'll give you credit for your honesty but it still confirms that you don't have any training in biology or evolution.<BR/><BR/>So please, stop trying to act like an authority. We'll deal with your arguments and since I'd be most of us already have a BSc if not a MSc or PhD, we're not going to be impressed by a couple of continuing ed courses.<BR/><BR/><I>How do you know that they were laid down in successive layers, rather than a primary event (with natural additions later by regularly observed processes)? What would the evidence be for such, as opposed to the current Uniformitarian assumptions?</I><BR/><BR/>Because the layers are not sorted by size or any other measure. Instead we see the same progression as we expect from evolution. We also see trace fossils which are absolutely impossible if there was a flood.<BR/><BR/>And again, I don't think you understand what uniformitarian means. The laws of physics haven't changed and so evolution is operating under this assumption. It's the YEC with magical rain, magically changing radiometric dates, magically accelerating and decelerating evolutionary rates that isn't uniform.<BR/><BR/><I>Because the evidence for evolution is a LOT more ambiguous than a person standing there with sh*t all over them and holding the bucket.</I><BR/><BR/>Not really, no. The point was the absurdity of you trying to claim that we need to observe something in the lab before we can draw scientific conclusions.<BR/><BR/><I>That's just great, but the predictions can also be very wrong.</I><BR/><BR/>A bold claim. Why don't you elaborate?Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10389341668865894702008-05-12T13:21:00.000-04:002008-05-12T13:21:00.000-04:00Question to all: Mary seems to have this idea that...<I>Question to all: Mary seems to have this idea that real science is directly observable and if it is not, then it is not real science. Yet my understanding is that if it PREDICTS things, it need not be directly observable. For example, the fossils are in layers showing evolution with 'gaps' because the conditions were not continuously favorable for fossilization. Kind of like only taking notes of a house being built every so often. But you can predict what happened in the gaps and find places where the conditions were right for fossilization at that time, and predict the that 'gaps' will be found there. And paleantologists DO this and have been successful. So the science, tho not directly obserbvable, is considered to be a mture theory because it can be used to predict finding things. What conditions must there be for non-observable theories to be accepted? And is this a common claim by fundamentalists that if you can't directly observe it, it isn't science? Is that how they dismiss science they don't like? Or is Mary an exception in her use of this?</I><BR/><BR/>OK, so lemme get this straight--you're asserting that Paleontologists are making predictions that there are gaps, because there are gaps? Well duh. That's sort of a no brainer there.<BR/><BR/>Yes of course there are going to be conditions unsuitable for fossilization. The question is, are the observations really what you think they are? And no, I'm not talking specifically about the "gaps"--I'm talking about the whole geologic column. How do you know that they were laid down in successive layers, rather than a primary event (with natural additions later by regularly observed processes)? What would the evidence be for such, as opposed to the current Uniformitarian assumptions?<BR/><BR/>You see, for something to be "science", you should at least be able to prove it at some point. That's what experiments are for. Hypotheses and theories exist while proof is searched for.<BR/><BR/>tyro:<BR/><I>Many sciences are forensic in some respects and fundies of all stripes will accept them, it's just an instance of special pleading. They don't like this science, so they ask what makes it different from other, less unpleasant, sciences and then they harp on that. This is the same special pleading they use to explain why Christianity is real and other religions are not - find the differences, draw a target around them, and say that these are what are important!</I><BR/><BR/>Dude, some of the "stories" (i.e. "scientific guessing") told by evolutionists are on a par with ancient myth.<BR/><BR/><I>Pardon the language, but this says it best:<BR/>http://saintgasoline.com/2007/12/01/refuting-creationists-with-only-a-bucket-of-feces/</I><BR/><BR/>Hahahahahha! Only one problem with that. What represents the "sh*t" and what represents the "Bucket of sh*t"? Because the evidence for evolution is a LOT more ambiguous than a person standing there with sh*t all over them and holding the bucket.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Evolution does make predictions. It predicts precise ontological, biochemical, paleontological, geological and geographical relationships. It predicts what forms and functions are possible and under what circumstances.</I><BR/><BR/>That's just great, but the predictions can also be very wrong.<BR/><BR/><I>Mary isn't an exception, and I've no doubt that she is just parroting the fallacious arguments that others have sold her.</I><BR/>How do you know they're fallacious?<BR/><BR/><I>When individuals don't understand something, they generally understand that they are ignorant and react with the appropriate humility, saying they don't know or that there is some gap in their understanding. Look at reactions to quantum mechanics or nanotechnology, some genuinely hard to comprehend subjects. There are some people that reject these sciences but they seem to be really fringe kooks. Evolution isn't a simple subject but it's approachable by those willing to put in the time. The reason we see these nonsensical arguments against it isn't because it's bad science, it isn't because it's too hard to understand, it's because it conflicts with religion and so it provokes the same reactions when other aspects of reality conflict with religion.</I><BR/>Dude, the reason I reject molecules-to-man evolution is BECAUSE I understand it. I also understand that it's easy to believe, because of the bait-and-switch definitions of evolution. Even if I wasn't religious I'd disagree with it.<BR/><BR/>Yes, evolution is quite "simple"--but it's so simple that a bunch of "just-so" stories that sound like they came out of a mythology book can pass as "science."<BR/><BR/>shygetz:<BR/><BR/><I>Science must make accurate predictions at a rate substantially higher than chance. In order to do this, science must utilize evidence to generate mechanistic models that explain the observed evidence AND makes testable predictions. So, science DOES have to be observable in part, but it does NOT mean that we must observe all cases everywhere. If we never saw evolution in action, we could not come up with the evolution hypothesis to test. However, once we have substantially validated the model over and over (and over, and over, and over, etc.), we can make testable predictions with great accuracy, and easily test those predictions against new data.</I><BR/>But this never tells us whether or not the amount of "change" that is considered "evolution" is enough to change amoebas into people.<BR/><BR/><I>Just like we have no data as to exactly when and how this PARTICULAR radioactive atom will decay, we can apply the predictive model from other observations to make predictions, and easily test these predictions. So why don't the evolution denialists bitch about quantum mechanics? Because the Hebrews didn't know about radioactivity. If they had, we'd be hearing about how the whim of the radiation angles is what dictates radioactive decay, not quantum mechanics.</I><BR/>Whatever. There's more to radioactive decay than just seeing the decay rate. The proportions of daughter elements to parent elements is considered (except in C-14, because the daughter element is N-14 and it's so common that it's useless to measure it for that purpose, therefore they assume the ratio of C12 to C14 in order to determine how long it's been decaying). If the ratio of C12 to C14 was different in the past, they'd never know it. And yet that is a CRITICAL thing to know if you're going to get an accurate C14 age, particularly on an older item. Similarly, with some rocks it is known that Argon 40 leaks (diffuses) into the rocks from below. But again, assumptions must be made. They have to "assume" how much is leakage and how much is truly the product of K decay at the time of the rock hardening (not to mention any primordial Ar 40 in the rock itself). If they assume that the rock is going to be in the range of millions of years old, they will accept the age unless it conflicts with their predetermined assumptions. Then they just toss the results out as "bad" (and it very may well be "bad"--but who's to say the others aren't also bad?)<BR/><BR/>Radioactive dating makes certain assumptions, such as the amount of parent to daughter element that existed primordially, leading to an idea of what existed when that might be totally incorrect. Can there ever have been a time with radioactive potassium when there was no radiogenic Argon-40? It's assumed as such but we'll never really know.<BR/><BR/><I>goprairie:<BR/><BR/>well, you are right. science can predict nothing in religion because science is seeking the truth about real things and religion is believing in made-up things.</I><BR/><BR/>This is a rather simplistic, not to mention juvenile, assertion. <BR/><BR/><I>so of course science can predict nothing within religion.<BR/>any more than science can predict the species of animal fur on Santa's red clothing. <BR/>but science can predict that the myths in religion are not true. just as it can predict that santa is not true because reindeer cannot fly and a person could not visit the home of every child on earth in one night. and yet . . . if you have faith, if you BELEIVE, you do get toys from Santa . . . in spite of science . . . so maybe it really really IS true . . . or maybe it is a made up game that peeople play in enough to convince some of them it is true.</I><BR/><BR/>Many atheists love to use Santa (or alternately, pink unicorns) as their cornerstone argument for why God doesn't exist. Few people claim that Santa has made a real personal difference in their lives. <BR/><BR/><I>i was reading just today about a pre-jesus goddess inanna who was killed and resurrected after 3 days and nourished by the water of life and the food of life and it wounded oddly similar to the jesus story and the last supper . . . i wonder why that is? maybe because the whole jesus thing was made up out of bits and peices of pervious myths?</I><BR/><BR/>Lemme guess, your information source is someone like Acharya S?<BR/><BR/><I>ah, but millions and millions of people believe the jesus thing. ah, but millions and millions of others beleive the Allah thing. which millions and millions are wrong? yep, the only thing that science can predict about religion is that ALL OF IT IS FAKE. sorry if that messes up your head. once you let go of the fake stuff, it stops hurting after a very short while and feels . . . good.</I><BR/><BR/>Well you can't prove that religion is fake. There are things out there that fall beyond the purview of science. Saying that science can prove religion wrong is like saying you can use a thermometer to prove that the color yellow does not exist.<BR/><BR/>Many religions are "fake", in the sense that they follow gods that do not exist. You'll notice something interesting about ancient mythology--very rarely do you see the gods of one religion pwning the crap out of gods from another religion in their stories. In fact, I've only ever seen it done in the Bible (i.e. Elijah and the Prophets of Baal; the Ark of the Covenant making Dagon's statue bow down in the land of the Philistines). I wonder why that is. Could it be that there's one religion that is correct?<BR/><BR/>See, you atheists and agnostics throw the baby out with the bath water. You end up with nothing, which is illogical because the Universe can't create itself from nothing.Drow Rangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002367011933665749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63920524901489152032008-05-12T12:41:00.000-04:002008-05-12T12:41:00.000-04:00Mary -- if you believe Noah had an ark, you are a ...<I>Mary -- if you believe Noah had an ark, you are a fundamentalist. Sorry to break it to you.</I><BR/>Sorry to break this to you, but you're going by an incorrect definition of "fundamentalist." That's NOT what a fundamentalist is, mkay? Fundamentalists are a specific subset, with specific doctrines that are not taught by my church, nor do I adhere to them. "Fundamentalists" are to be found among such as Baptists, etc. Such doctrines as they have are not found among Lutherans.<BR/><BR/><I>Second, you failed to answer 2 of my questions at all and your answers to the other 2 are woefully wrong.</I><BR/>What did I fail to answer?<BR/><BR/><I>First you say:<BR/><BR/>He probably didn't need to have any. Beetles could quite possibly survived in floating logs. Beetles are small and he wouldn't have needed very many if they did get on the Ark--maybe no more than 5 or 6 pairs at the most. Many beetle species are quite similar.<BR/><BR/>Excuse me. I'm too busy laughing to type.<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>OK, now I'm better.<BR/><BR/>5 or 6 pairs. That's rich. There are 5-8 million species of beetle. There are more types of beetles in one family than there are mammals and birds combined.</I><BR/>And the problem is what exactly? Dude, bugs reproduce quickly. They have BAZILLIONS of offspring just in the space of a year nowadays. And our understanding of the term "species" may be a bit too broad; as there are clearly different "species" that can get together and make offspring. It is not unthinkable for a few pairs of bugs (which don't take up much room anyway LOL) to expand out into a million different species, just beetles alone at that. And you're the one demonstrating astonishingly huge ignorance in the field of biology.<BR/><BR/><I>You are the most aggressive evolutionist I've ever heard of if you think that in 4000 years 12 beetles could evolve into 5-8 milliion species.</I><BR/>But they're all still beetles; they are not for example turning into arachnids. You can call it "evolution", sure, but that depends on your definition of the word. I just love it when people bait and switch with that term...<BR/><BR/><I>Secondly how do you imagine that beetles could complete their life cycle after living 40 days on a log in the sea since there are NO marine insects. You claim you have "studied" biology. I doubt that claim, but if it's true, you wasted your time. Read up a bit on Beetles before you embarrass yourself any more.</I><BR/>So there's no marine insects? So what? Why would you expect there to be? These bugs aren't living IN water when hiding out on the vegetation, they're in shelter. And if you think a bug won't hide anywhere it can if there's water rising, you really don't know much now do you?<BR/><BR/><I>Next you say:<BR/><BR/>Mites are even smaller than beetles, and most of these are parasites of some kind. They would not have needed to have been specially provided for, since they'd be carried on their hosts. As to the number...well, as many as fleas on your dog.<BR/><BR/>Excuse me while I clean the milk from my nose and the front of my shirt. <BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>OK that's better. Thanks.<BR/><BR/>You do understand that you are saying that Noah and his family then carried all species of human mite? Did they also have all human species of louse? How about skin fungus and scabies? Poor Noah, he must have been itchy on that ark. But it really gets worse. See, there are about 900,000 species of mite, conservatively. That would either mean a heck of a lot of evolution in 4000 years or a whole lot of mites on the ark. With all those mites, how could the creatures survive the 40 days and nights having their blood and body fluids sucked up?<BR/><BR/>I haven't even mentioned ticks or parasitic worm species unique to humans.</I><BR/><BR/>Same issue with the mites as the beetles, eh, in your mind? Just because there's 900,000 "species" today doesn't mean there were 900,000 back then. Nor would he have needed to take so many (either passively or actively) to make everybody itch like nuts. Again, rate of insect reproduction is key here. Many parasites spend at least part of their life cycles in FISH and other aquatic organisms (such as snails), so your argument isn't as good as you think it is, especially concerning the worms...(and I KNOW about all the worms, many of them are aquatic. Ever hear of the Guinea or "Fire" Worm?)<BR/><BR/>Ticks are quite common on animals, and your objection is duly noted...but equally misinformed.<BR/><BR/><I>On to number 3:<BR/><BR/>It is an automatic function of sexual reproduction that things "change"--to a certain degree. It is also not necessarily taking as long as evolutionists assume it does. For instance, scientists have discovered that "Darwin's Finches" (on the Galapagos) were exhibiting RAPID changes in beak size--and we're talking on the order of only hundreds of years to go from one beak type to another.<BR/><BR/>So I'm glad to see you believe in evolution. I just don't see how you can worry about it not happening if you think it happens so rapidly. You are a bizarre type of person. Rapid evolution within baramin, but none from one baramin to the next. Since you've studied biology -- what mechanisms prevent one baramin from rapidly evolving to another one?</I><BR/><BR/>"Evolution" is a funny term. It is used by people to describe two different things, thus evoking a "bait and switch" approach when used vs. creationists. Did you know that Natural Selection was actually coined by a CREATIONIST, Edward Blythe by name, before Darwin came along?<BR/><BR/>The thing about "evolution" in the sense of one "kind" or baramin "evolving" into another is the difficulties in the mechanism of new data arriving into the system and in what amounts. "Natural Selection" can only weed out traits, not create them. This is why evolutionists cling to mutation. But even that doesn't seem to be enough. This all boils down to what SORT of change we're talking about here. Reshuffling of existing genes can cause change but it does NOT create new genes. It only distributes information that is already there.<BR/><BR/><I>So Zebras and horses are not in the same baramin. So Amazon parrots and African grey parrots are not in the same baramin. Oh ... but it gets better. You see, those 5-8 million species of beetle? They are almost all in different baramins. Your logic eats itself.</I><BR/>Umm, yes they are in the same baramin. They can actually PRODUCE OFFSPRING, whereas humans and chimps cannot. Successful hybridization means just that, and it also means you don't know what I'm talking about. Zebra + horse makes a foal. While the differences in chromosome numbers makes the males sterile, the females can often mate with a normal zebra and get zebras, or normal donkeys and get donkeys. You cannot do this with people and chimps. You can't even get a viable embryo for crying out loud, from human x chimp. <BR/><BR/><I>Whatever institution taught you biology (and I suspect it was not a very reputable one), your current understanding of it is really laughable. You should be embarrassed.</I><BR/>I'm sure that my heavily-evolution-centered professor from Malaspina Univerity-College would be thrilled to hear that, not to mention the heavily-evolution-pushing Biology teachers at my high school. ;) And as we all know, Canadian Education > American, so I KNOW you got a less-than adequate education to mine for sure. :P<BR/><BR/>You're the one that doesn't understand. Seriously.Drow Rangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002367011933665749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9729417293638491222008-05-12T03:50:00.000-04:002008-05-12T03:50:00.000-04:00well, you are right. science can predict nothing ...well, you are right. science can predict nothing in religion because science is seeking the truth about real things and religion is believing in made-up things. <BR/>so of course science can predict nothing within religion.<BR/>any more than science can predict the species of animal fur on Santa's red clothing. <BR/>but science can predict that the myths in religion are not true. just as it can predict that santa is not true because reindeer cannot fly and a person could not visit the home of every child on earth in one night. and yet . . . if you have faith, if you BELEIVE, you do get toys from Santa . . . in spite of science . . . so maybe it really really IS true . . . or maybe it is a made up game that peeople play in enough to convince some of them it is true. i was reading just today about a pre-jesus goddess inanna who was killed and resurrected after 3 days and nourished by the water of life and the food of life and it wounded oddly similar to the jesus story and the last supper . . . i wonder why that is? maybe because the whole jesus thing was made up out of bits and peices of pervious myths? ah, but millions and millions of people believe the jesus thing. ah, but millions and millions of others beleive the Allah thing. which millions and millions are wrong? yep, the only thing that science can predict about religion is that ALL OF IT IS FAKE. sorry if that messes up your head. once you let go of the fake stuff, it stops hurting after a very short while and feels . . . good.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70671068245635984322008-05-12T02:02:00.000-04:002008-05-12T02:02:00.000-04:00shygetz "Science must make accurate predictions a...shygetz <I> "Science must make accurate predictions at a rate substantially higher than chance." </I> perhaps you are right and that Mary's point is that science is not the right tool, it is after all not the universal panacea.<BR/><BR/>I would welcome your examples of where else in the study of philosophy science experiment is applied with good effect to validate thinking - you spoke of "prediction". <BR/>So why in religion?<BR/><BR/>Hamba kahle - peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39670653705009090422008-05-11T22:28:00.000-04:002008-05-11T22:28:00.000-04:00Question to all: Mary seems to have this idea that...<I>Question to all: Mary seems to have this idea that real science is directly observable and if it is not, then it is not real science. Yet my understanding is that if it PREDICTS things, it need not be directly observable.</I><BR/><BR/>Science must make accurate predictions at a rate substantially higher than chance. In order to do this, science must utilize evidence to generate mechanistic models that explain the observed evidence AND makes testable predictions. So, science DOES have to be observable in part, but it does NOT mean that we must observe all cases everywhere. If we never saw evolution in action, we could not come up with the evolution hypothesis to test. However, once we have substantially validated the model over and over (and over, and over, and over, etc.), we can make testable predictions with great accuracy, and easily test those predictions against new data. Just like we have no data as to exactly when and how this PARTICULAR radioactive atom will decay, we can apply the predictive model from other observations to make predictions, and easily test these predictions. So why don't the evolution denialists bitch about quantum mechanics? Because the Hebrews didn't know about radioactivity. If they had, we'd be hearing about how the whim of the radiation angles is what dictates radioactive decay, not quantum mechanics.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11107883344847812172008-05-09T21:28:00.000-04:002008-05-09T21:28:00.000-04:00What conditions must there be for non-observable t...<I>What conditions must there be for non-observable theories to be accepted? And is this a common claim by fundamentalists that if you can't directly observe it, it isn't science? Is that how they dismiss science they don't like? Or is Mary an exception in her use of this? </I><BR/><BR/>Many sciences are forensic in some respects and fundies of all stripes will accept them, it's just an instance of special pleading. They don't like <I>this</I> science, so they ask what makes it different from other, less unpleasant, sciences and then they harp on that. This is the same special pleading they use to explain why Christianity is real and other religions are not - find the differences, draw a target around them, and say that these are what are important!<BR/><BR/>Pardon the language, but this says it best:<BR/>http://saintgasoline.com/2007/12/01/refuting-creationists-with-only-a-bucket-of-feces/<BR/><BR/><BR/>Evolution does make predictions. It predicts precise ontological, biochemical, paleontological, geological and geographical relationships. It predicts what forms and functions are possible and under what circumstances.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mary isn't an exception, and I've no doubt that she is just parroting the fallacious arguments that others have sold her. When individuals don't understand something, they generally understand that they are ignorant and react with the appropriate humility, saying they don't know or that there is some gap in their understanding. Look at reactions to quantum mechanics or nanotechnology, some genuinely hard to comprehend subjects. There are some people that reject these sciences but they seem to be really fringe kooks. Evolution isn't a simple subject but it's approachable by those willing to put in the time. The reason we see these nonsensical arguments against it isn't because it's bad science, it isn't because it's too hard to understand, it's because it conflicts with religion and so it provokes the same reactions when other aspects of reality conflict with religion.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79078361450341108632008-05-09T18:39:00.000-04:002008-05-09T18:39:00.000-04:00I think you give her too much credit. There's no o...I think you give her too much credit. There's no overarching theory to Paleyist Creation/Floodism. There's a fixed, false belief. Whatever props up the fixed, false belief will be obsessively focused on. Whatever does not will be ignored.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81842683482965686212008-05-09T18:24:00.000-04:002008-05-09T18:24:00.000-04:00Question to all: Mary seems to have this idea tha...Question to all: Mary seems to have this idea that real science is directly observable and if it is not, then it is not real science. Yet my understanding is that if it PREDICTS things, it need not be directly observable. For example, the fossils are in layers showing evolution with 'gaps' because the conditions were not continuously favorable for fossilization. Kind of like only taking notes of a house being built every so often. But you can predict what happened in the gaps and find places where the conditions were right for fossilization at that time, and predict the that 'gaps' will be found there. And paleantologists DO this and have been successful. So the science, tho not directly obserbvable, is considered to be a mture theory because it can be used to predict finding things. What conditions must there be for non-observable theories to be accepted? And is this a common claim by fundamentalists that if you can't directly observe it, it isn't science? Is that how they dismiss science they don't like? Or is Mary an exception in her use of this?goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23578921207179614792008-05-09T14:50:00.000-04:002008-05-09T14:50:00.000-04:00It's this sort of question that makes me think you...It's this sort of question that makes me think you don't want to believe in evolution no matter what, Mary:<BR/><BR/>"how can you objectively, scientifically PROVE that those structures changed into eyes over time?"<BR/><BR/>What kind of proof would you like? What we have now (so far as I understand it) is a theory of how it might have happened together with evidence that shows similar changes in the past and also a pretty strong record of similar changes taking place now. What else, other than a time machine, would you like?Elihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03543293341085230171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65951601146184865152008-05-08T22:35:00.000-04:002008-05-08T22:35:00.000-04:00evan, you're going to drive me out of business her...evan, you're going to drive me out of business here. Excellent reply.<BR/><BR/>Mary, I want to know what university you received your B.S. in biology from, so I can make certain to never accept any graduate students from there.<BR/><BR/>justin said: <I>I have not once on this blog argued for or against anything in the evolution/ID debate; I have no dog in the fight.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes you do. It's sad that you don't realize it. Your medicine, vaccinations, epidemiology, advances in manufacturing for many nutritional products, ecology, etc., etc. all depend on the understandings allowed by evolutionary theory. Next time you take an antibiotic or get your flu vaccine, remember to silently thank evolutionary biologists and keep in mind that you DO have a dog in this fight, whether you realize it or not.<BR/><BR/>justin, asking what the purpose is behind man's existence is begging the question that there IS a reason, which assumes an intentional actor. You must establish a foundation for your question--you must demonstrate that a purpose exists before asking what the purpose is. I may as well demand that you explain the purpose behind the sky being blue, or the sun being yellow--without establishing that such a reason exists, it is a meaningless question. I can understand that you WANT existence to have a purpose beyond yourself, but wanting it doesn't make it so.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8134061723459725372008-05-08T19:48:00.000-04:002008-05-08T19:48:00.000-04:00Justin - Thanks for finally coming clean with an a...Justin - Thanks for finally coming clean with an answer. I do appreciate your candor finally, and so I almost lack the will to poke at it. Makes the term 'fish in a barrel' come to mind, tho those guys on TV did debunk that shooting fish in a barrel was all that easy. Still, cliches die hard. Like religion.<BR/>So, you say: For US to live with GOD? So we were made as friends, companions, to God? How many does he NEED? Why wouldn't he make a perfect few, say enough for a whole table of poker, say, or a 4some in golf, or enough to act out Hamlet and some appreciate audience? Why would we need to exponentially reproduce until we are filliing the earth too full for it to support us? That makes no sense. The perfect God would design a better system for getting enough playmates, were there actually such a needy entity.<BR/>Now, if life started as a chance event of chemical self-replication and that self-relication occasionally was imperfect such as to intoduce variations and the variations that fit well into an unoccupied niche then successfully replicated, there would eventually be many many different forms that fill every niche of the earth in sort of a runaway self-replication process that once started, is only regulated by limits of resources. Kinda like we have. That makes sense. More sense than a God making companions for himself. <BR/>Now, in the self-replicating entities scenario, some of those ended up with these quirky multi-parted brains that processed things at different speeds and sometimes parts of those brains got overloaded with inputs or got into states where the communication among them was out of sync, so one part of the multi-part brain experienced things before other parts and so the other parts seemed to feel like separate presenses or entities and so they made up this thing called a spirit to explain that since they didn't know about the multi-parted brain and delays in synapses and such and some of those mulit-parted brain life forms decided there was probably one big spirit over all the little spirits and some of them decided there was only the one big spirit and others decided there was a three parted one big spirit, kinda like their 3, well, 4 parted brain and then some of them finally figured out there were probably no spirits and that it could all be explained with brain chemistry and the timing delays in the experiences to different parts of the brain but by then so many people believed in various versions of the spirit entity explanation and they were all so busy fighting about whose spirit entity version was righter that they would not listen to what had been discovered to be the real explanation. so here we are.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40624434880848913572008-05-08T19:47:00.000-04:002008-05-08T19:47:00.000-04:00Oh, come on, Justin -- was that so hard? If you ha...Oh, come on, Justin -- was that so hard? If you had meant to be at all clear in your biblical rendering of the answer to the question, "Why are we here?", you would have used a <I>modern</I> English version. No, the NKJV is not <I>modern</I> English. It is modern<I>ized</I>, but still the clunky OE style. You'd also have provided the references directly, instead of enticing us to find them.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, you <I>did</I> hit the nail on the head when you recognized that "the problem of 'ignorance' is not about what we do not know, but about what we wish to ignore."<BR/><BR/>The claim of atheists, agnostics, and free-thinkers in general is that we do not know the correct answer, but we recognize our ignorance. The theists, on the other hand, <I>ignore</I> the fact that there are things they do not know, and claim to know things about which they are ignorant.<BR/><BR/>You will undoubtedly disagree with this, but do you deny that theists deny the evidence of science whenever it suits them? This is ignorance of things they do not know. Do theists not also claim direct knowledge of the divine? This is claimed knowledge of things about which they are ignorant.<BR/><BR/>Q.E.D.M.F.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-92113101839771547022008-05-08T17:59:00.000-04:002008-05-08T17:59:00.000-04:00goprairie said...Perhaps you don't think your inte...goprairie said...<BR/><I>Perhaps you don't think your interpretation is valid...</I><BR/><BR/>If I thought it was invalid, I wouldn't hold to it.<BR/><BR/><I>...or prehaps you don't think it can stand up to the debate here?</I><BR/><BR/>My interpretation has been debated since I arrived, so no, again.<BR/><BR/><I>...passage that is not written on commonly used English language...</I><BR/><BR/>This is a new one. The NKJV is not common English?<BR/><BR/><I>If you are unwilling to tell me what the simple reason to why we are here is that you claim is expressed in that passage...</I><BR/><BR/>Fine... let me paraphrase:<BR/><BR/>"Fear God and keep his commandments, for this this the whole duty of man." Ecc. 12:13<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>"And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8<BR/><BR/>both from the NIV. I can't make it any more plain. In my humblest opinion, that's our purpose and reason to be here, to live with God. As opposed to being, cosmically speaking, alone.<BR/><BR/><I>If I were to attempt to interpret what you mean by that passage, you would accuse me of putting words in your mouth or mis-interpreting.</I><BR/><BR/>That's YOUR paranoia... no, actually I wanted to know what YOU thought of the passage. I guess I'll still go wanting...<BR/><BR/><I>...and I believe that gives me the win.</I><BR/><BR/>So that's all this is about, you proving (to yourself, I assume) you're right?<BR/><BR/>So much for open-minded inquiry.Delinquent Minerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261239652546133640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46874726892680110852008-05-08T17:40:00.000-04:002008-05-08T17:40:00.000-04:00goprairie,Since Justin is too much of a smartass t...goprairie,<BR/>Since Justin is too much of a smartass to answer your question about the interpretation of his Bible quote, I can at least give the references. Most of the first paragraphs are from Ecclesiastes chapter 12, and the last paragraph is from Micah 6:8 in the Old Testament.<BR/><BR/>It is all a bunch of esoteric, superstitious bs.godsfavoritecolorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02757522375837146460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75278959437816527092008-05-08T17:15:00.000-04:002008-05-08T17:15:00.000-04:00"No, I refuse to interpret the bible for you."Perh..."No, I refuse to interpret the bible for you."<BR/>Perhaps you don't think your interpretation is valid or prehaps you don't think it can stand up to the debate here? <BR/>If you are unwilling to tell me what the simple reason to why we are here is that you claim is expressed in that passage that is not written on commonly used English language, then I can only assume you no longer to continue to hold any discussion. If I were to attempt to interpret what you mean by that passage, you would accuse me of putting words in your mouth or mis-interpreting. No, the burden is for YOU to explain what you mean by the passage and by your refusal, you withdraw from the discussion, and I beleive that give me the win.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57594559098028547932008-05-08T16:38:00.000-04:002008-05-08T16:38:00.000-04:00Mary said: "Changes occur because of how genes are...Mary said: "Changes occur because of how genes are expressed. However, you'll also notice that dogs are still dogs, regardless of all the modifications that have occurred--especially the domestic ones."<BR/><BR/>Can I take this as evidence that you believe that offspring have different traits than their parents?Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12193941136059651535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82290052570677904192008-05-08T16:35:00.000-04:002008-05-08T16:35:00.000-04:00goprairie said...You said religion answers why we ...goprairie said...<BR/><I>You said religion answers why we are here.</I><BR/><BR/>I said religion gives an answer where science cannot. Then, I gave <B>my</B> answer from the text, on the condition that it probably wasn't an answer to your question.<BR/><BR/> <I>You quoted some long vague obtuse Bible passage. I asked what it means. You refuse to answer.</I><BR/><BR/>That passage was significantly shorter than most posts on DC. No, I refuse to interpret the bible for you.<BR/><BR/><I>YOU are the one claiming the Bible has an answer to the question of why we are here. I claim it does not.</I><BR/><BR/>And I answered my claim, with a clear, textual answer.<BR/><BR/><I>Not up to me to try decode your answer.</I><BR/><BR/>You simply don't want to read and interpret it at face value. Not my problem.<BR/><BR/><I>Not up to giving a real honest brief in-your-own words answer to what you think the Bible's answer to why we are here is?</I><BR/><BR/>It was honest, and brief (~100 words). I'm not up to trying to hit a constantly moving target.<BR/><BR/><I>But don't make claims you are not willing to back up...</I><BR/><BR/>I have backed up my claim, you just don't like my answer. Again, not my problem.<BR/><BR/>I'm beginning to thing the problem of "ignorance" is not about what we do not know, but about what we wish to ignore.Delinquent Minerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261239652546133640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56905093838828605092008-05-08T16:17:00.000-04:002008-05-08T16:17:00.000-04:00HA!I laughed when I read Evan's tease:You can answ...HA!<BR/><BR/>I laughed when I read Evan's tease:<BR/><BR/><I>You can answer within an order of magnitude</I><BR/><BR/>(I'm laughing as I type it)<BR/><BR/>I laughed even more at Mary's BS B.S. answer:<BR/><BR/><I>no more than 5 or 6 pairs at the most</I><BR/><BR/>(I'm again laughing as I type it)<BR/><BR/>And then her whopper:<BR/><BR/><I>they'd be carried on their hosts</I><BR/><BR/>(Hang on a second)<BR/><BR/>(Okay, I'm better)<BR/><BR/>To answer Evan's question about the source of Mary's degree, I'd say it's most likely Junior High, or possibly High School at some backwater Christian school, although I suppose a case could be made for Oral Roberts University...<BR/><BR/>Holy shit that was a pretty good laugh. Michael Moore should interview her some time. Pure comedy, that one.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37078563953155343162008-05-08T16:06:00.000-04:002008-05-08T16:06:00.000-04:00A BS in Biology does not make you an expert in Evo...A BS in Biology does not make you an expert in Evolutionary Science.<BR/>What University?<BR/>Let me guess. Bob Jones?godsfavoritecolorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02757522375837146460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56199622217767793932008-05-08T14:45:00.000-04:002008-05-08T14:45:00.000-04:00Justin: "Sorry, friend. I'm not going to do your ...Justin: "Sorry, friend. I'm not going to do your free-thinking for you."<BR/>Oh, come on, what a silly answer. I said science has more answers and answers based on observable and logical fact than religion and asked what religion answers that science doesn't.<BR/>You said religion answers why we are here.<BR/>I said what is religion's answer to that.<BR/>You quoted some long vague obtuse Bible passage.<BR/>I asked what it means.<BR/>You refuse to answer.<BR/>YOU are the one claiming the Bible has an answer to the question of why we are here. I claim it does not. So it is up to YOU to support you claim. Not up to me to try decode your answer. <BR/>Not up to giving a real honest breif in-your-own words answer to what you think the Bible's answer to why we are here is? <BR/>Okay. Fine. But don;t make claims you are not willing to back up and don't insult me when I ask for clarification. <BR/>John, do you have enough data from the answers so far to make a call on the original question of "Who's Ignorant?"goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85594633289058064672008-05-08T14:32:00.000-04:002008-05-08T14:32:00.000-04:00marythe mockery and rudeness you exhibit and your ...mary<BR/>the mockery and rudeness you exhibit and your mischaracterization of what science is and isn't make any attempt at further discussion with you pointless. you ARE a fundamentalist if you beleive the things you are spouting here. i, too, refuse to waste any more time on you.<BR/>i hope your faith serves you somehow because it is not serving you in understanding how the world works.goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12588734667325989982008-05-08T12:39:00.000-04:002008-05-08T12:39:00.000-04:00godsfavoritecolor said...[non-answer] Not so. Stat...godsfavoritecolor said...<BR/><I>[non-answer] Not so. Stating that there is no purpose and that it is simple evolutionary chance is an answer. Purpose, like god, is a human invention.</I><BR/><BR/>So you say. That answers nothing, existentially.<BR/><BR/><I>Evolution is highly complex and not simple as you portray it. [snip] You are deliberately ignorant. You are nothing more than shills for the deliberate ignorance of ID.</I><BR/><BR/>I have not once on this blog argued for or against anything in the evolution/ID debate; I have no dog in the fight. Why not address the actual content of my conversation with goprairie... can you answer the existential questions of humanity?<BR/><BR/>So far, you say no...Delinquent Minerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261239652546133640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6257725707642861052008-05-08T12:09:00.000-04:002008-05-08T12:09:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Delinquent Minerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261239652546133640noreply@blogger.com