Home | Be a Christian | Devotionals | Join Us! | Forums | Rules | F.A.Q.


Go Back   Christian Forums > Discussion and Debate > Physical & Life Sciences > Creation & Evolution
Register BlogsPrayersJobsArcade Calendar Mark Forums Read

Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Unread 3rd June 2009, 06:26 AM
Ectezus's Avatar
Beholder

31 Gender: Male Faith: Agnostic Country: Netherlands Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 1st March 2009
Posts: 802
Blessings: 67,115
Reps: 6,565,145,261 (power: 6,565,151)
Ectezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond repute
Ectezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond reputeEctezus has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
Like I said, show me the evidence–the burden is on the proponent.
I agree, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. This goes both ways of course and creationists have never provided any scientific evidence to support their claims.
Evolution has 150 years of research so when you ask 'show me' it comes off as a bit weird.
There is no single piece of evidence because it's a combination of all different sciences that comes together and proof evolution by common decent.

Here's one as well about ERV's.



I expect you to watch the whole 10 minutes and give your detailed feedback on it and why it doesn't proof evolution.

Finding just a single out of place ERV would be a blow to evolution. The amount of existing ERV's is staggering and so far NONE is out of place. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

- Ectezus
__________________
Sigmund Freud [1856-1939] (Austrian physician and pioneer psychoanalyst) said:

"It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be."
Reply With Quote
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!

  #22  
Unread 3rd June 2009, 07:25 AM
ranmaonehalf's Avatar
Senior Member

Gender: Male Faith: Atheist Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 6th November 2006
Posts: 1,525
Blessings: 122,977
Reps: 1,559,258,407,616 (power: 1,559,258,416)
ranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond repute
ranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond reputeranmaonehalf has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by LifeToTheFullest! View Post
Let me be the first to call Poe.
Me too, now if it was a long time poster then id be wary. But yep mu first thought was Poe too.
__________________
I'm a polyatheists. There are many gods I dont believe in.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Unread 3rd June 2009, 09:46 AM
Veteran

Gender: Male Faith: Humanist Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 27th November 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,217
Blessings: 166,284
Reps: 2,160,465,330,633 (power: 0)
ragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond repute
ragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond repute
Tell me how you can support evolution based upon present knowledge of DNA and genes.

By ragarth
Spoiler for Thermodynamic Favoratism and Generation of Self Replicating RNA:

adenine C5H5N5
uracil C4H4N2O2
cytosine C4H5N3O
guanine C5H5N5O

Ribose C5H10O5
Phosphate: PO4

thermodynamic favoratism of nitrogenous bases and ribomes
SpringerLink - Journal Article

self replicating RNA with provolution
Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme -- Lincoln and Joyce 323 (5918): 1229 -- Science

synthesis of full nucleotides via natural abiogenic methods:
ScienceDirect - Advances in Space Research : Abiogenic synthesis of nucleotides in conditions of space flight of the biosputnik “BION-11”

So here we have all the building blocks of life forming via abiogenic means all the way up to basic nucleotides (a nucleotide consists of a nitrogenous base, a ribome, and a phosphate), and a research paper I can't read fully that describes a sequence of events that would create long polymerase chains. The only thing we're missing is a minimum length and number of self-replicating chains within that length.

A length I arbitrarily found was 114:
Nucleotide sequence of microvariant RNA: another small replicating molecule.

Only problem is I can find nothing saying how many combinations within that are self-replicating, it could be anywhere from 'all of them' to 'none' but more than likely in between. If we start plugging in random value we get some figures:

4^114 = 1 in 4*10^68 chance a single reaction will produce a self-replicating strand
2^114 = 1 in 2*10^34 chance a single reaction will produce a self-replicating strand
1^114 = 1 in 1 chance a single reaction will produce a self-replicating strand

Now let's have some math fun, let's arbitrarily assume that the number of reactions taking place at any moment on a prebiotic earth is equal to the number of grains of sand upon the earth (10^24) and lets assume that a reaction takes place every minute, we get:

(10^68 / 10^24) / (364 * 24 * 60) = 7.6*10^38 years
(2*10^34 / 10^24) / (364 * 24 * 60) = 38156 years
(1 / 10^24) / (364 * 24 * 60) = 10^-30 years (let's just assume 1 second, shall we?)

So the top and bottom ones seem very unlikely, and the middle one seems really low. We can't put a date on the start of the RNA World Hypothesis if it's correct because our only figures (4 billion years ago for life) go back to when early cells existed and RNA World does not rely strictly upon cells- at best ligand globs as stated by an earlier poster or simply free floating. Let's not let reality stop us though! Now we get into pointless speculation. (moreso than this post already is. :-p Seriously, I'm all but pulling figures out of my butt here.) Let's assume 4 billion years ago RNA World began, that gives us 400 million years of chemical processes to produce it. Reversing the equation:

Chance = Time(total) * Time(reaction) * Number(reactions per unit time)

So plug it in for 400 million (age of earth - 4 billion give or take a bit)

Chance = Time(total) * Time(reaction) * Number(reactions per unit time)

400000000 * (364 * 24 * 60) * 10^24 = a 1 in 2*10^38 chance per reaction

So there you go, the chances for life to arise on a given planetary body fitting the requisites for life are very, very good even if the per-reaction chance is crazy mofo with a nuke low.

N.B. Most of this is whipped out of the aether of my swiss cheese, take it worth the value of a fart, or the value of my dog's fart.

Not directly related, it deals with statistically proofing abiogenesis, but most creationists seem to conflate abiogenesis and evolution so I figured why not.

By ragarth
Spoiler for Explanation of Values for Previous Post:

Okay, I slept, so now I feel a bit more like explaining some of my assumptions in my previous post. The first biggie is my choice of base pairs: 4, 2, and 1. 4 is obvious, a given position within a length of RNA can have 4 different molecules in it, giving us 4 different possible solutions. The 2 is there because we can divide these four nucleotides into 2 groups: Adenine always binds with Guanine and Thymine always bonds with Uracil, therefore since there's no other value than self replication it's feasible that it doesn't matter which in a given group binds because it will always produce it's compliment, ergo 2 possible solutions. The 1 is arbitrary and used as a representative of every possible combination of 114 base pairs being a solution, so the chances are 1:1.

My choice of the grains of sand in the world is arbitrary because there is nothing that tells us how many chemical reactions might have taken effect in prebiotic earth. Seawater and hydrothermal vents are likely with seawater having a more diffuse density than the vents. Since the area needed for a chemical reaction is smaller than that for a grain of sand then in a chemical and energy rich environment you can have several reactions in the same space as a single grain of sand. I didn't provide a range for this as I did for the base pairs because the factors that go into this are majorly game changing, if we take into account only long polymerase production here on earth, it's probably high, if we take into account long polymerase production in asteroids and comets in our solar system then it's probably low, if we take into account polymerase production in the accretion disk of the sun during planet formation then the figure is stupidly low, ergo the range is so massive I used the first thing that popped into my mind and since the common refrain is 'the chances are larger than the number of grains of sand on the planet' and 'the chances are greater than the number of stars in the universe' I decided to go with sand.

Also, a correction! I put 4 million years, it's supposed to be 400 million years!

400000000 * (364 * 24 * 60) * 10^24 = a 1 in 2*10^38 chance per reaction


By ragarth
Spoiler for Reading Material About ERV's:

How about a little light reading?

Retrovirology | Full text | The discovery of endogenous retroviruses
Journal of Human Genetics - Abstract of article: Ancient retroviral insertions among human populations
Characterization of the Intragenomic Spread of the Human Endogenous Retrovirus Family HERV-W -- Costas 19 (4): 526 -- Molecular Biology and Evolution

Viruses and the Evolution of Life

Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution of the Human Endogenous Retrovirus HERV-W LTR Family in Hominoid Primates

Basically, HERV-W was endogenized around 5 million years ago into the germline cells of ancestral apes. The duplication of this ERV's sequences gives a timeframe that allows us to plot points of divergence between species. This matches the phylogenetic tree constructed for the Hominoid taxonomy, and so is proof of evolution.

As a side note, these ERV's were once thought to be neutral in the genome, recent studies have shown that they are linked to certain functions such as trophoblast cell fusion in human development, and also their latent activation can be linked to certain diseases such as schizophrenia. This makes the study of ERV's role in HGT pretty hot right now. It's important to note, however, that only sections of the ERV's code does this, the majority of the ERV's code is neutral within the genome.


By ragarth
Spoiler for Comparison of Organisms and Inorganics to Show Relationships:

It's quite relevent, Diamonds have carbon, bacteria have carbon, trees have carbon. We can ascertain a relationship based on this fact. We can also ascertain a closer relationship to things with DNA, because diamonds to not contain DNA. We can ascertain an even closer relationship between things that share the same ERV, because other things do not share the same ERV.

We can then look at the pattern of shared ERV's to ascertain common descent. So yes, if you're going to say that diamonds are not relevent to the discussion, then carbon is not relevent to the discussion. You're attempt to handwave away my point is you applying a double standard.


By ragarth
Spoiler for What an ERV is:

ERV stands for Endogenous RetroVirus. Basically, it's a virus that manages to insert itself into a hosts germline cell (the cells that produce sperm or eggs for reproduction) but the inserted DNA/RNA fails to replicate itself and instead remains within the germline deactivated. an Endogenous Retovirus Insertion is what happens when the ERV becomes a part of the host's DNA itself. Once insertion takes place, the position of the ERV within the host's DNA is set and will remain in the same position over recursive generations.

Transcription errors on the ERV insertion happen over time, duplicating or modifying it over the period of thousands or millions of years. By looking at the HERV-w insertion in Hominid DNA, we can see that almost all Hominids share this insertion. This tells us that some hominids are more closely related (The duplications and mutations of their HERV-w are more similar) and others are less related (The duplications and mutations in their HERV-w are less similar) and we can map these duplications and insertions to create an evolutionary tree. Because this is all based upon the insertion of viral dna, this is conclusive proof of common decent from the moment of insertion to now.

Since HERV-w was inserted around 5 million years ago, we have conclusive proof of common decent of hominids going back 5 million years based upon this evidence.


NeuroLogica Blog The Judgement of Tiktaalik
Spoiler for Quatation from Linked Article:

What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.
So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a “fishopod,” beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Unread 3rd June 2009, 11:02 AM
Warning - The following may cause you to think

32 Gender: Male Faith: Taoist Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 13th November 2007
Posts: 1,569
Blessings: 126,663
My Mood Amused
Reps: 1,141,313,842 (power: 1,141,321)
Jester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond repute
Jester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond reputeJester4kicks has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
I will say it again. The evidence is flawed. You all assume the conclusions of evolution “scientists” is true, because they have told you it is true. The underpinnings are faulty. They are fraudulent and contrived in many cases.
Examples?


Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
The conclusions are errant because the adherents begin with presuppositions regarding their anticipated outcomes. You won’t do the research for me? Heck, you haven’t even done your own research. Like I said, show me the evidence–the burden is on the proponent.
You're the one who started a thread to criticize what you referred to as the "so called evo evidence"... ergo, YOU are the proponent of your own position, and yet you haven't offered and direct criticism of any part of the Theory of Evolution. You just keep running your mouth, sticking to generalizations and ad-hom attacks.

Present something specific that you have a problem with, and we'll be happy to discuss it.


Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
As for evolution being the underpinning of all biological science. That is simply bunk. Observable data is not dependent on evolution. Medicine is not dependent upon evolution at all. So, what you are claiming is that the reason for all progress in biological science is evolution? How arrogant of you to think that your pet theory is all that important. Name one discovery or medical/biological invention that owes its underpinning to evolution. Look, when Mendel grew peas, they came out as peas. If the seeds still survive, they are still peas.
How wonderfully revealing.


Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
People have told me that DNA research has ‘proven’ evolution. That is simply another evolutionist non sequiturs. If you think your genome information is so over-charged, why don’t you volunteer to have the 85% of your unused DNA information extracted. Ultimately, you will find it is there for a purpose. It makes the thing work. I have heard your friends argue that the S-1 vertebrae is a left-over product of evolution. They will not admit that it serves a purpose. No one wants it removed because there are some pretty important parts attached.
So... you would risk paralysis and death just to prove a point about vestigial organs/parts?


Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
Even one of your own acknowleged that there is no explanation for the origin of life. Experiments with the primevil soup have failed miserably.
No... they've yielded some amazing results, including the basic building blocks of life. It's still not a complete theory though, so they're going to continue working on it to see what else they can find out. In case you missed it, there was recently a pretty major study that was just released on this subject as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/sc...4rna.html?_r=1

Regardless, Abiogenesis and Evolution are different fields. Once again, you seem to be having trouble coming up with actually responses to the questions presented to you... so you're just jumping around to anything else and poking your stick at it.


Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
Show me the evidence for the origin of life. Some of your most honored scientist have suggested alien seeding with a straight face. Talk about an infinite regression.
It's not necessarily impossible... it's just a possibility. Exploring that possibility to determine if it is valid or not is part of science. A good researcher doesn't automatically discount a possibility just because it seems to be unlikely.


Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
I will say this, I respect your opinion and your right to disagree with me. I don’t think I postulated such a strong opinion in the first place. I am amused that some have approached the subject with such an arrogant and condescending attitude, and I think I have been, as one contributor suggested, polite.
1) You have made broad generalizations and then launched ad-hom attacks to anyone in those general categories.

2) You have completely ignored requests for specific instances of your accusations.

3) You have hand-waved away multiple topics, sometimes with single-line-sentences.

To say that you have been a "contributor", let alone a "polite" one, is an absolute farse.

(See what I did there, I presented a point AND supported it... try it sometime)


Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
I do know that none you have addressed the evidence question that was originally raised. I am not demanding that you research for me. If you subscribe to something just because “scientists say”, your research is suspect anyway. You are merely accepting the evidence that someone says they have found and drawn a conclusion. If the evidence is wrong, the conclusion fails.
I'm not here trying to convince you that the evidence is valid... as I have no interest in educating you. YOU raised the point that the evidence is faulty, falsified, or otherwise misinterpretted... I am happy to defend my own position against these attacks, but you have yet to provide a single example of the "faulty evidence" that you are referring to.

Oh.. and before you get all hung up on my own unwillingness to educate you... there's a simple reason for that. You obviously have a problem with the evidence in support of evolution. Ergo, there's no point in me presenting a well-structured argument, based on available evidence, since you are just as likely to hand-wave it away.

Until I know what YOU'RE particular problem is with the current evidence for the Theory of Evolution, it is impossible to discuss the matter with you further.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Unread 3rd June 2009, 01:38 PM
Split Rock's Avatar
Conflation of Blathers

50 Gender: Male Faith: Agnostic Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 3rd November 2003
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 16,600
Blessings: 16,378,091
My Mood Bahahaha
Reps: 681,741,317,489,825,664 (power: 681,741,317,489,853)
Split Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond repute
Split Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
Well apparently those who were so offended by the original post don’t want to make any substantial cogent argument. Conclusory commentary and offhand dismissal seems to be the standard. Still, no one has actually addressed the nature of the so-called evidence, and the tendency of proponents of evolution to submit fraudulent and contrived data.
How can we address the nature of the "so-called" fradulent evidence, if you refuse to provide evidence that there is any fraud to begin with? You wouldn't be bearing false witness against your neighbors, by any chance... would you?


Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
Just because you call something a fallacy doesn’t mean that it is. Don’t you think that you are misdirecting the question. The question is toward the so-called evidence that evolution relies on. None of you give me any evidence that you know anymore about DNA than anyone else. You guys talk about word games, but you use some of the most twisted logic because you don’t want to face the weakness of the thing that you believe in.
Just because you call evidence "fradulent," doesn't mean that it is.


Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
The original post certainly did not invite anyone to express a faith in God or to believe in any particular faith. Likewise, creationism or intelligent design was never mentioned. It certainly does not suggest that you abandon your faith in creation, it merely asks about the validity, the veracity, and the credibility of the so-called evidence. Still, there is no solid response on that. Certainly we can exchange websites, but that doesn’t prove the point, does it? By the way, I suppose those who have offered websites truly believe that if it’s on the Internet, it must be true.
Give us some specific examples of "fradulent" evidence, or please stop posting here.


Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
Seems to me that many purport to same parroting and strawman arguments that they claim to have been refuted. They have not been refuted at all. Show me the evidence. Instead, you want to call names again, referring to everyone who doesn’t agree with you to say “fundie”.
Show us the "fradulent" evidence.


Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
Here's a question: do you really believe evolution has anything to do with advances in medical science or any other branch of science? Ridiculous. Another conclusory statement.
Look at advances based on genomics. Pete should cover this one.


Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
I will say this, I will bet you a dime to a dollar that many of the so-called moral atheist herethink that it’s perfectly okay to extinguish pre-born human babies for any reason whatsoever. Now, those same people may cringe a little bit if the infant happens to be two or three years old, but really what is the difference based upon your foundation? When a person is mentally incompetent, physically challenged, or just old, but I bet they would think it’s okay to extinguish those too. Be careful folks, many of you who purport to support evolution are not too far from sounding like the Third Reich. Tell me something, what makes you so angry about all of this?
Why are you referring to abortion now? Stick with one subject at a time please.


Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
For many here, I think your moral compass is a bit off. Who are you to say that any agnostic or atheist is moral? What do you base that on? What right do you have to determine who is moral and who is not? Based on your foundation, you have no right at all. In some societies, you are supposed to love your neighbor, and others, you eat him. Which one do you subscribe to?
What does this have to do with "fradulent" evidence for evolution? You are all over the place, like a kid in a candy store.


Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
Oh by the way, I guess I can jump to the conclusion that I win, since this is now the last word on the subject, and no one has responded. (I’m not so pompous as to believe that’s actually the case, as some of the previous posts).
Of course, you will eventually claim you have "won." A standard creationist tactic.
__________________
"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them, we had the Bible and they had the land."
-Archbishop Desmond Tutu

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread ... nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
-Isaac Azimov
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Unread 4th June 2009, 06:46 PM
Naraoia's Avatar
Apprentice Biologist

28 Gender: Female Faith: Atheist Country: Hungary Member For 5 Years Watchman
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 30th September 2007
Location: On edge
Posts: 6,664
Blessings: 4,055,919
Reps: 150,107,052,920,964,160 (power: 150,107,052,920,978)
Naraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond repute
Naraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond reputeNaraoia has a reputation beyond repute


For the lurkers' sake...

Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
Your so-called evidence is based upon someone’s interpretation of what they have claimed to observed.
Do I smell an accusation of fraud? Do I smell accusing pretty much every single scientist who ever studied evolution of fraud?

It has long been known that much of the so-called evidence lacks veracity because the finders have been academically dishonest.
Evidence please.

In fact, that it’s likely the case with the most recent Ida find.
Oh, Ida. A single fossil touted as more than it is does in no way cast doubt on "much" of the evidence for evolution.

Tell me where we can go see the so-called geologic column for all of the fossilized forms are put in date order? It does not exist.
I'd be very surprised if it existed, seeing as there are a zillion different environments on earth at any one time, each with its unique collection of living creatures. There's no way all of the fossilised forms would be represented in a neat chronological column like that unless the entire geological column was preserved over the whole earth. If you have Eocene whale fossils in the column at a certain location, that pretty much excludes having Eocene horse fossils there.

However, for your education: the geological column apparently does exist.

Tell me how you can support evolution based upon present knowledge of DNA and genes. I have a clue for you: DNA contains information. Changes in DNA have purported to have occurred in evolution result in a loss of information, not in a gain of information.
Right. Mutations can be reversed. So if A --> T is a loss of information, is T --> A at the same position also a loss of information? Something is fishy about the logic here.

Is gene duplication a loss of information?

No one questions micro evolution, as these changes merely demonstrate information that is already encoded into the gene.
Define information, please, and demonstrate how this statement is true.

Do you really believe in an Einstein fish who at one point decided he needed to grow feet, and he decided to pass that on to his kids?
No.

The fish didn't decide any such thing. The fish just happened to have fins that made it better at moving about in the shallows than other fish. Given an advantage to that ability - say, being better able to avoid the big fish, or having better access to safe breeding grounds, atmospheric oxygen or some food source -, the fish would be a successful one, and the next generation would be full of shallow-adapted little fish. Rinse and repeat...

Adherents to evolution cannot tolerate when their conclusions, based upon pure speculation and surmise...,
How is, let's see... the entire fossil record, hundreds of sequenced genomes and many more sequenced genes, biogeography, observed selection and speciation, novelties arising under scientists' nose and all that "pure speculation and surmise"?

Let me say something positive about the detractors: you all certainly believe very strongly in what you believe.
That's not necessarily positive...

I can say that you have defended your cause with a religious zeal. Your crusade to defend your faith is well noted.
Believing something based on absolute shiploads of evidence is hardly "faith".

Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
Well apparently those who were so offended by the original post don’t want to make any substantial cogent argument. Conclusory commentary and offhand dismissal seems to be the standard. Still, no one has actually addressed the nature of the so-called evidence,
Since the so-called evidence probably encompasses millions of papers' worth of information, it's kinda hard to address it in general... Any specific areas or pieces of evidence you would like to discuss?

...and the tendency of proponents of evolution to submit fraudulent and contrived data.
Evidence, please. Remember, a fraction of a per cent does not a "tendency" make.

The question is toward the so-called evidence that evolution relies on. None of you give me any evidence that you know anymore about DNA than anyone else.
Ask something about DNA, and I might give you that evidence. I'm pretty sure, at least, that I know more about it than you.

Also, refer back to the mutation/information argument a few paragraphs back.

You guys talk about word games, but you use some of the most twisted logic because you don’t want to face the weakness of the thing that you believe in.
Examples, please.

Seems to me that many purport to same parroting and strawman arguments that they claim to have been refuted. They have not been refuted at all. Show me the evidence.
Evidence for what? Be specific for once, please.

Instead, you want to call names again, referring to everyone who doesn’t agree with you to say “fundie”.
Seeing as "fundies" make up a very large proportion of those who don't agree with us in this particular matter, that's at least vaguely justified.

Here's a question: do you really believe evolution has anything to do with advances in medical science or any other branch of science?
Yes.

If nothing else, evolution lets us understand why so many things in living organisms are useless or counterproductive

Ridiculous. Another conclusory statement.
Is "conclusory" even a word?

I will say this, I will bet you a dime to a dollar that many of the so-called moral atheist herethink that it’s perfectly okay to extinguish pre-born human babies for any reason whatsoever.
For any reason? I think you'd lose the bet.

Now, those same people may cringe a little bit if the infant happens to be two or three years old, but really what is the difference based upon your foundation? When a person is mentally incompetent, physically challenged, or just old, but I bet they would think it’s okay to extinguish those too. Be careful folks, many of you who purport to support evolution are not too far from sounding like the Third Reich. Tell me something, what makes you so angry about all of this?
Can anyone count all the fallacies in this paragraph?

There's a slippery slope there: if you don't mind abortion, why wouldn't you mind killing children or cripples? Well, there are differences between clumps of cells, foetuses that have no chance at all of living a happy life, thinking, feeling cripples and, indeed, all kinds of disabilities. It's never a simple issue, no matter how you want to make it simple.

Then, the whole paragraph is basically a huge irrelevant ad hominem. Look at those baby-eating evilutionists: you sure don't want to believe what they do? Look at the things James Watson said about Africans! Sure DNA can't be a double helix?

Sorry, man, but the truth of a belief doesn't depend on the moral qualities of the believer.

For many here, I think your moral compass is a bit off.
What does that have to do with evolution?

Who are you to say that any agnostic or atheist is moral?
Who are you to say that they are not?

What do you base that on? What right do you have to determine who is moral and who is not? Based on your foundation, you have no right at all. In some societies, you are supposed to love your neighbor, and others, you eat him. Which one do you subscribe to?
What does that have to do with evolution?

Maybe, with your vastly superior moral compass, you could try judging people's morality by their actions, not their religious views. Would you say that a Christian who kills and rapes is moral?

Originally Posted by RTooty View Post
I will say it again. The evidence is flawed. You all assume the conclusions of evolution “scientists” is true, because they have told you it is true.
Indeed your telepathy skills must be very good to read people's mind from the other end of the continent/earth.

The underpinnings are faulty. They are fraudulent and contrived in many cases.
Evidence, please.

The conclusions are errant because the adherents begin with presuppositions regarding their anticipated outcomes.
Evidence, please.

You won’t do the research for me? Heck, you haven’t even done your own research. Like I said, show me the evidence–the burden is on the proponent.
Like I said, be specific, and then maybe we can talk about the evidence. "Evolution" turns up about 2.5 million hits in Google Scholar. Sure you want to be selective when discussing the subject?

Plus, as has been said already, the burden is on the one making the claim. You claim the evidence is fraudulent, but Ida is the only specific example I've seen you mention, and whether Ida's species is a direct human ancestor or not doesn't really have anything to do with the truth of evolution.

As for evolution being the underpinning of all biological science. That is simply bunk.
I will assume that you've never actually studied biological science in any depth.

Observable data is not dependent on evolution. Medicine is not dependent upon evolution at all.
MRSA, flu and a whole lot of other things disagree.

So, what you are claiming is that the reason for all progress in biological science is evolution?
I wonder who would honestly claim that. Of course it's not the reason for all progress. But it is behind a significant proportion of it.

How arrogant of you to think that your pet theory is all that important. Name one discovery or medical/biological invention that owes its underpinning to evolution.
Tiktaaaaaaaalik!!!

Look, when Mendel grew peas, they came out as peas. If the seeds still survive, they are still peas.
You are rambling incoherently. It would help if you occasionally indicated how one sentence connects to the other... Anyway, evolution says that you never step out of your ancestry, so Mendel's peas fit in just fine.


People have told me that DNA research has ‘proven’ evolution. That is simply another evolutionist non sequiturs.
Please describe in your own words what a non sequitur is.

If you think your genome information is so over-charged, why don’t you volunteer to have the 85% of your unused DNA information extracted.
I think you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I certainly haven't.

Ultimately, you will find it is there for a purpose. It makes the thing work. I have heard your friends argue that the S-1 vertebrae is a left-over product of evolution. They will not admit that it serves a purpose. No one wants it removed because there are some pretty important parts attached.
I'm sorry? S1 is the first sacral vertebra, right? The one at the top of the pelvis?

Who the heck said that it was a leftover? It's not even at the end of the vertebral column, or vestigial, or useless, or anything And taking it out would kinda... leave a gap in your spine. Of course no one wants it removed.

Even one of your own acknowleged that there is no explanation for the origin of life. Experiments with the primevil soup have failed miserably. Show me the evidence for the origin of life.
What does the origin of life have to do with the theory of evolution?

(FYI, abiogenesis research has moved well past the primordial soup. We have promising things like growing, dividing protocells now...)

Some of your most honored scientist have suggested alien seeding with a straight face. Talk about an infinite regression.
Talk about irrelevant arguments.

I do know that none you have addressed the evidence question that was originally raised.
Perhaps you weren't specific enough with your question?

I am not demanding that you research for me. If you subscribe to something just because “scientists say”, your research is suspect anyway. You are merely accepting the evidence that someone says they have found and drawn a conclusion. If the evidence is wrong, the conclusion fails.
You know, it is possible to look at what scientists say and scrutinise it. It tends to be published in papers with detailed methodologies and piles of results. If the evidence is wrong, it's quite possible to find out.
__________________
"There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet

"[G]ood and evil are names for what people do, not for what they are." Philip Pullman, The Amber Spyglass


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Reply With Quote
  #27  
Unread 5th June 2009, 05:39 PM
Senior Member

22 Gender: Male Faith: Humanist Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 2nd November 2007
Posts: 1,814
Blessings: 77,670
Reps: 48,079,557,500,619,768 (power: 48,079,557,500,628)
Danyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond repute
Danyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond reputeDanyc has a reputation beyond repute
Tinfoil hats, get yer tinfoil hats here, only $2 !!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Unread 6th June 2009, 05:01 AM
Gracchus's Avatar
Senior Veteran

Gender: Male Faith: Buddhist Party: US-Others Country: United Nations Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 21st December 2002
Location: California
Posts: 6,376
Blessings: 2,192,449
Reps: 186,096,636,295,650,720 (power: 186,096,636,295,668)
Gracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond repute
Gracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond reputeGracchus has a reputation beyond repute
I'll have a quart of Everclear and a carton of marijuana, please.

__________________
"A belief which leaves no place for doubt is not a belief; it is a superstition." - Jose Bergamin

"You can't trust an honest man." --- Anonymous

"He does not believe who does not live according to his belief." -- Thomas Fuller

"The fact that the author thinks slowly is not serious, but the fact that he publishes faster than he thinks is inexcusable." -- Wolfgang Pauli

"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" -- Micah 6:8

"It is because we believe absurdities that we are able to commit atrocities." -- Voltaire

"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli

"Je ne suis pas marxiste." -- Karl Marx

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."-- Mark Twain

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Unread 6th June 2009, 11:11 AM
Split Rock's Avatar
Conflation of Blathers

50 Gender: Male Faith: Agnostic Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 3rd November 2003
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 16,600
Blessings: 16,378,091
My Mood Bahahaha
Reps: 681,741,317,489,825,664 (power: 681,741,317,489,853)
Split Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond repute
Split Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond reputeSplit Rock has a reputation beyond repute
It looks like RTooty is not going to provide evidence for all these frauds he is claiming scientists are perpetuating. Just another lie to demonize his opponents. How unChristian.
__________________
"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them, we had the Bible and they had the land."
-Archbishop Desmond Tutu

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread ... nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
-Isaac Azimov
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Unread 6th June 2009, 11:19 AM
Veteran

Gender: Male Faith: Humanist Country: United States Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 27th November 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,217
Blessings: 166,284
Reps: 2,160,465,330,633 (power: 0)
ragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond repute
ragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond reputeragarth has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Split Rock View Post
It looks like RTooty is not going to provide evidence for all these frauds he is claiming scientists are perpetuating. Just another lie to demonize his opponents. How unChristian.
He hasn't been logged in since the day of his last post, so either he hasn't had a chance to check the forums, or he's checking it without logging in. I give people the benefit of the doubt so I say he just hasn't had a chance to answer yet.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
disgusted


Return to Creation & Evolution

Thread Tools
Display Modes


 
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:55 AM.