Loch Ness Monster debunks evolution

Loudmouth · Jun 29, 2012

Inan3 said:
I forgot the reference which I have now included in my post. Here it is for you, remember it was just an excerpt to prove a point not the whole thing.

Physics Book

The only point it proves is that dietary recommendations are difficult to figure out. How is that relevant to the information I presented?

Cute Tink · Jun 29, 2012

Inan3 said:
I forgot the reference which I have now included in my post. Here it is for you, remember it was just an excerpt to prove a point not the whole thing.

Physics Book

Fair enough, but I still think that the title is a bit inappropriate. Maybe something more along the lines of "Pride May Be the Downfall of Science"

Inan3 · Jun 29, 2012

Loudmouth said:
The only point it proves is that dietary recommendations are difficult to figure out. How is that relevant to the information I presented?

It was not the subject matter I was pointing out. It was how the research differs in different areas. There is no complete data even in your field. How that is relevant is that you have been convinced of a very small part of the puzzle and therefore, you think all is proven by this one small piece. The surface has barely been scratched in our DNA. I don't believe research will ever be complete in this area. More research could change it all and answer it all but presently it is still too unpredictable.

CabVet · Jun 29, 2012

Inan3 said:
It was not the subject matter I was pointing out. It was how the research differs in different areas. There is no complete data even in your field. How that is relevant is that you have been convinced of a very small part of the puzzle and therefore, you think all is proven by this one small piece. The surface has barely been scratched in our DNA. I don't believe research will ever be complete in this area. More research could change it all and answer it all but presently it is still too unpredictable.

Really? There is no complete data in our field? Surface "scratched" in our DNA?

Human genomes: you can download 69 (sixty nine) complete human genomes here.

Chimpanzee genome: first draft published in 2005, other individuals sequenced more recently.

Bonobo genome: recently compared with the chimpanzee and human genomes.

Gorilla genome: published earlier this year and compared to human and chimp.

Orangutan genome: published last year, several individuals sequenced.

So much for "unpredictable", "small piece" and "scratching the surface".

Inan3 · Jun 29, 2012

Loudmouth said:
[/COLOR]

Yes, one that discusses dietary recommendations. That is not cogent to this discussion. We are talking about common ancestry, not dietary recommendations.

What do disagreements over dietary recommendations say about the evidence for common ancestry? Please explain.

That is not what the quote says. It says that figuring out dietary recommendations is difficult.

Then please show why orthologous ERV's do not evidence common ancestry. What am I missing?

I personally cannot nor do I need to because there is enough information out there that can do that. One just needs to want to find it. I give you one below from from the following site.

Pseudogenes

About half way down the page under "Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs)"
Updated: April, 2012.

Signs of function:
One problem is that a number of ERVs, or at least portions of ERVs, are being discovered to be functionally beneficial.

The ERV known as enJSRV has been shown to "regulate trophectoderm growth and differentiation in the peri-implantation ovine conceptus. This work supports the hypothesis that ERVs play fundamental roles in placental morphogenesis and mammalian reproduction." 35
In fact, ERVs elements are thought to control or aid in the transcription of over 20% of human genome46 and can trigger premature transcriptional termination at a distance. (Link)
It is also interesting to consider that ERVs and other supposedly "parasitic" DNA elements are found far more often in the genomes of more "complex" organisms - suggesting again that non-coding portions of DNA once thought to be nothing but "junk DNA" and evolutionary remnants are actually playing important functional roles in the genomes of more functionally complex organisms.

"With the accumulation of genomic sequence data, certain unexplained patterns of genome evolution have begun to emerge. One striking observation is the general tendency of genomes of higher organisms to evolve an ever decreasing gene density with higher order. For example, E. Coli has a gene density of about 2 Kb per gene, Drosophila 4 Kb per gene and mammalian about 30 Kb per gene. Much of the decreased density is due to the increase in the accumulation of non-coding or 'parasitic DNA' elements, such as type one and two transposons. Current evolutionary theory does not adequately account for this observation (81). In addition mammals appear to have retained the presence of at least some copies of non-defective 'genomic retroviruses', such as intercysternal A-type particles (IAP's) or endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). It is currently difficult to account for the selective pressure that retains these genomic viruses . . ." 38

In this same line, a subsequent paper presented evidence that proposes potential reasons for the previously observed "selective pressure" and the actual need for ERVs within the genomes of complex organisms like humans. In the journal Bioinformatics, Conley et. al. write:

"We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5' untranslated regions (UTRs)...
Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome. These data suggest that ERVs may regulate human transcription on a large scale." 46

ERVs are also being shown to be protective against infection by harmful exogenous retroviruses:

"A possible biological role hypothesized for ERVs is to help the host resist infections of pathogenic exogenous retroviruses, affording a selective advantage to the host bearing them. For instance, some avian and murine ERVs can block infection of related exogenous retroviruses at entry by receptor interference; mouse Fv-1 blocks infection at a preintegration step, also can be viewed as an ERV." 50

CabVet · Jun 29, 2012

Inan3 said:
I personally cannot nor do I need to because there is enough information out there that can do that. One just needs to want to find it. I give you one below from from the following site.

Pseudogenes

About half way down the page under "Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs)"
Updated: April, 2012.

Signs of function:
One problem is that a number of ERVs, or at least portions of ERVs, are being discovered to be functionally beneficial.

The ERV known as enJSRV has been shown to "regulate trophectoderm growth and differentiation in the peri-implantation ovine conceptus. This work supports the hypothesis that ERVs play fundamental roles in placental morphogenesis and mammalian reproduction." 35
In fact, ERVs elements are thought to control or aid in the transcription of over 20% of human genome46 and can trigger premature transcriptional termination at a distance. (Link)
It is also interesting to consider that ERVs and other supposedly "parasitic" DNA elements are found far more often in the genomes of more "complex" organisms - suggesting again that non-coding portions of DNA once thought to be nothing but "junk DNA" and evolutionary remnants are actually playing important functional roles in the genomes of more functionally complex organisms.

"With the accumulation of genomic sequence data, certain unexplained patterns of genome evolution have begun to emerge. One striking observation is the general tendency of genomes of higher organisms to evolve an ever decreasing gene density with higher order. For example, E. Coli has a gene density of about 2 Kb per gene, Drosophila 4 Kb per gene and mammalian about 30 Kb per gene. Much of the decreased density is due to the increase in the accumulation of non-coding or 'parasitic DNA' elements, such as type one and two transposons. Current evolutionary theory does not adequately account for this observation (81). In addition mammals appear to have retained the presence of at least some copies of non-defective 'genomic retroviruses', such as intercysternal A-type particles (IAP's) or endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). It is currently difficult to account for the selective pressure that retains these genomic viruses . . ." 38

In this same line, a subsequent paper presented evidence that proposes potential reasons for the previously observed "selective pressure" and the actual need for ERVs within the genomes of complex organisms like humans. In the journal Bioinformatics, Conley et. al. write:

"We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5' untranslated regions (UTRs)...
Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome. These data suggest that ERVs may regulate human transcription on a large scale." 46

ERVs are also being shown to be protective against infection by harmful exogenous retroviruses:

"A possible biological role hypothesized for ERVs is to help the host resist infections of pathogenic exogenous retroviruses, affording a selective advantage to the host bearing them. For instance, some avian and murine ERVs can block infection of related exogenous retroviruses at entry by receptor interference; mouse Fv-1 blocks infection at a preintegration step, also can be viewed as an ERV." 50

And how does that in any way shape or form change the fact that we share many ERVs with other apes?

Loudmouth · Jun 29, 2012

Inan3 said:
It was not the subject matter I was pointing out. It was how the research differs in different areas.

Then why point to research in human diet in order to argue against evolutionary biology? That doesn't make sense. If there is disagreement about what diet is best for all humans does this mean that science could be wrong about germs causing disease?

There is no complete data even in your field.

There is no complete data in any field, but why should that stop us from drawing conclusions when we have a ton of evidence?

Let's say that you were on a jury in a murder case. The prosecution demonstrates that the defendant's fibers, DNA, fingerprints, shoe prints, and tire prints were found around and on the murder victim. The defense offers arguments between dieticians on the best diet for humans as a reason that we should not accept this evidence as pointing to guilt. Would you buy it? Would you require absolute knowledge of everything in the universe before you found the defendent guilty?

The surface has barely been scratched in our DNA.

The entire genomes of humas, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans has been sequenced. We have more than scratched the surface. We have plumbed the depths.

I don't believe research will ever be complete in this area.

Doesn't change the fact that the research we do have demonstrates that we share common ancestry with other apes.

More research could change it all and answer it all but presently it is still too unpredictable.

Not unpredictable at all. It pointed exactly where the theory of evolution predicted it would. We share orthologous ERV's with other apes, just as the theory of evolution predicted.

Loudmouth · Jun 29, 2012

Inan3 said:
I personally cannot nor do I need to because there is enough information out there that can do that.

And yet you claim that there is no evidence for evolution. That would require you to understand the information and be able to judge it for yourself. Now that the evidence sits firmly on the side of evolution you are all of the sudden ignorant of the evidence. Sorry, it's too late for that. You don't get to tell the world that there is no evidence for evolution and then play dumb when that evidence is put forward.

About half way down the page under "Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs)"
Updated: April, 2012.

Signs of function:
One problem is that a number of ERVs, or at least portions of ERVs, are being discovered to be functionally beneficial.

That is not a problem for using ERV's as genetic markers for determining common ancestry. Where in my earlier posts did I state that ERV's are evidence of common ancestry because they have no function? Nowhere did I ever state this. NOWHERE. It is the random insertion of retroviruses that allows them to be used as phylogenetic markers.

CaliforniaSun · Jun 29, 2012

Inan3 said:
I personally cannot nor do I need to because there is enough information out there that can do that. One just needs to want to find it. I give you one below from from the following site.

Pseudogenes

About half way down the page under "Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs)"
Updated: April, 2012.

Signs of function:
One problem is that a number of ERVs, or at least portions of ERVs, are being discovered to be functionally beneficial.

The ERV known as enJSRV has been shown to "regulate trophectoderm growth and differentiation in the peri-implantation ovine conceptus. This work supports the hypothesis that ERVs play fundamental roles in placental morphogenesis and mammalian reproduction." 35
In fact, ERVs elements are thought to control or aid in the transcription of over 20% of human genome46 and can trigger premature transcriptional termination at a distance. (Link)
It is also interesting to consider that ERVs and other supposedly "parasitic" DNA elements are found far more often in the genomes of more "complex" organisms - suggesting again that non-coding portions of DNA once thought to be nothing but "junk DNA" and evolutionary remnants are actually playing important functional roles in the genomes of more functionally complex organisms.

"With the accumulation of genomic sequence data, certain unexplained patterns of genome evolution have begun to emerge. One striking observation is the general tendency of genomes of higher organisms to evolve an ever decreasing gene density with higher order. For example, E. Coli has a gene density of about 2 Kb per gene, Drosophila 4 Kb per gene and mammalian about 30 Kb per gene. Much of the decreased density is due to the increase in the accumulation of non-coding or 'parasitic DNA' elements, such as type one and two transposons. Current evolutionary theory does not adequately account for this observation (81). In addition mammals appear to have retained the presence of at least some copies of non-defective 'genomic retroviruses', such as intercysternal A-type particles (IAP's) or endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). It is currently difficult to account for the selective pressure that retains these genomic viruses . . ." 38

In this same line, a subsequent paper presented evidence that proposes potential reasons for the previously observed "selective pressure" and the actual need for ERVs within the genomes of complex organisms like humans. In the journal Bioinformatics, Conley et. al. write:

"We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5' untranslated regions (UTRs)...
Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome. These data suggest that ERVs may regulate human transcription on a large scale." 46

ERVs are also being shown to be protective against infection by harmful exogenous retroviruses:

"A possible biological role hypothesized for ERVs is to help the host resist infections of pathogenic exogenous retroviruses, affording a selective advantage to the host bearing them. For instance, some avian and murine ERVs can block infection of related exogenous retroviruses at entry by receptor interference; mouse Fv-1 blocks infection at a preintegration step, also can be viewed as an ERV." 50

This doesn't say what you think it says.

Loudmouth · Jun 29, 2012

CaliforniaSun said:
This doesn't say what you think it says.

With creationists, it rarely does.

The confusion probably stems from the fact that a lot of ERV's accumulate mutations in a manner consistent with neutral drift. This indicates that many have little to no beneficial or detrimental function.

Even showing that they change protein expression still does not indicate that they are beneficial or detrimental, nor does it put their viral origin in doubt. The entire purpose of the LTR sections of a retroviral genome is to upregualte the expression of the viral genes upstream of the promoters. They are already evolved to change protein expression.

If a retroviral insertion ends up benefiting the individual then of course it will be preserved by natural selection. Creationists who argue against ERV's because some have beneficial function are arguing against what evolution predicts. ERV's are random mutations. The entire point of the theory is that random mutations can produce beneficial changes. Now creationists want to claim that this observation actually invalidates evolution. Go figure.

RickG · Jun 29, 2012

Inan3 said:
Physics Book

I have emboldened this last line because I think that is how science works in Scienceville. You may not admit that it happens that way but if you stand back and look at it from a distance, the way most of us do, you will see that is exactly how it happens. You've heard the old cliche, "You can't see the forest for the trees." I think that you are there in the midst and you refuse to see the whole picture because you are too close the the subject and only look at what you want to or what benefits you.

Having read the first page of that link it is obvious to me that the author has trouble describing the scientific method properly, not to mention that he has an axe to grind with anyone who has earned a PhD.

Scienceville.

Seems like an indication that you may have an axe to grind as well. Have you ever worked in a field where you have to apply scientific research? Just curious. I know that there are people that your link describes well, but for the most part, that is not true for the greater scientific community, errr...... :bow:

scienceville.

NailsII · Jul 1, 2012

Inan3 said:
Nails, I realize he was in the tourist industry but that does not exclude him as an "expert" in regards to Nessie. For all you know, he may know all about the sonar evaluations of Nessie and much more than those who did them. I read the article as well as you so you should not assume I did not "investigate" the source of my information. I also realize that this man does not think they will ever find the Loch Ness monster. He is of your opinion. That does not exclude the fact that he said there were some unexplainable sonar findings and that more research should be done. I don't find that anything that you should be objecting to. It sounds right up your alley.

I have no interest in whether someone is an expert in myths & legends or just a lay person.
For this reason, I son't actually think it's in my neighbourhood.

Inan3 said:
Your suggestion that because something is unexplainable then "no amount of research will ever uncover the truth only goes contrary to the very principles of scientific research.

Not my suggestion, it was in your quote. Your expert said that.

Inan3 said:
You may not be aware of hype or malicious attacks because perhaps they are saying what you would think or say. I know that after the news first broke on the web that I searched through 32 search pages on Google for perhaps just one different slant on the issue and what I found was probably 99% of them were just copied and pasted information with a few of their own jabs along wtih their own opinions on the subject. No one did any further "research" on the subject. They just passed the bias on from one heckler to the other. I find that disgraceful. Is that their right, yes. People are going to do what they want to do. And people only see what you want to see. That includes you and me, Nails.

Not aware or not interested?
But this really does sound like something that people do, pretend to be an expert by copying and pasting.

Inan3 said:
People teach what they believe.

Doesn't make it right though - that is the point I am trying to make.

Inan3 said:
As to astrology they already do teach such things in schools and it seems your only problem with that is that it would only be wrong if it touched on astronomy.

No, not at all - astrology really is rubbish and if it is taught as anything else in schools then that is also outrageous.

Inan3 said:
Science is not the only thing of value in this world.

Very true.

Inan3 said:
I find it disgraceful that women, the medical profession, science, and many other people find it okay to abort babies with no regard for the babies or what they go through. That does not stop them from funding it out of my money!!

I think you need to drop this rant against abortion and linking it with science..
It is off topic, and your emotional slant on this makes it something we could not discuss in a rational manner.
If you want to talk about abortions, let's start a thread on it - is that OK?

Inan3 said:
Science does many other things that are disgraceful and yet, the people of Scienceville find nothing disgraceful or upsetting about their testings on human subjects or on our atmosphere or with the drugs they put out "in the name of science", and on and on and on.

Examples wold be nice, then I might be able to comment on them.

Inan3 said:
These people in these schools have a right to teach what they believe.

No, they don't.

Inan3 said:
We have a constitution that supports that.

I'm no expert, but I don't see anything in the US constitution that protects the rights of those who teach rubbish as fact.
Besides, even if it is legal, is it the morally right thing to do?

Inan3 said:
If someone is offended by it they do not have to send their children. As to supporting them with funds, they have as much right to get funds as those who teach transcendental meditation and astrology and other things that people on my side of the court do not support. For years we have been left out of the loop on funding but we pay taxes as much as those who get help doing things we don't approve of.

I don't see how religious institutions in AMerica, which are among the most financlially powerful in the country, have been left out of the loop with funding?
Have you seen how much money these mega-churches and TV shows pull in?

Inan3 said:
You may not agree with it but in my eyes it is more beneficial to teach children to believe in God rather than in some of the things you might support.

There is only one way that you could demonstrate this, and that is with evidence.
If it is true, that people are better off, live better lives etc with God in their lives then you would have few objections to universal religious education.
Unfortunately, many of us see it as a harmful side to a child's education.

freezerman2000 · Jul 1, 2012

Has there been actual proof found of Nessie, or is this just another smoke screen?

NailsII · Jul 1, 2012

freezerman2000 said:
Has there been actual proof found of Nessie, or is this just another smoke screen?

For a supposedly large air-breathing animal to be living in a loch without ever being directly observed* equates to a 'no' in my opinion.

* i know there are sketchy photos, and eye witness reports but nothing concrete. Funny how as photo technology advances, there are still no sharp images of this beast.

freezerman2000 · Jul 1, 2012

NailsII said:
For a supposedly large air-breathing animal to be living in a loch without ever being directly observed* equates to a 'no' in my opinion.

* i know there are sketchy photos, and eye witness reports but nothing concrete. Funny how as photo technology advances, there are still no sharp images of this beast.

No definitive sonar hits either.

NailsII · Jul 1, 2012

freezerman2000 said:
No definitive sonar hits either.

Given the accuracy of sonar nowadays (you can get a hand-held device that will count the number of fish underwater) then a plesiosaur should be quite easy to find.
Yes I know that the water is pretty deep in Loch Ness, and this complicates things.

Anyway, this summarises it for me:

Searching for the Loch Ness Monster BBC (2003)

Nessie does not exist

Inan3 · Jul 1, 2012

NailsII said:
I have no interest in whether someone is an expert in myths & legends or just a lay person.

Well, you don't know what area of expertise he is in now do you?

Not my suggestion, it was in your quote. Your expert said that.

The "expert" said "unexplainable YOU said "If the sonar really is unexplainable then no amount of research will ever uncover the truth, right?" I simply was answering YOUR question "... then no amount of research will ever uncover the truth, right?" Again I answer, "NO" to your question. That suggestion is WRONG!" Just because something is unexplainable does not mean that research could not find an answer and make it more explainable.

Not aware or not interested?
But this really does sound like something that people do, pretend to be an expert by copying and pasting.

Yes, it is more than "something that people do" it is how most of the information is passed along on the net.

Doesn't make it right though - that is the point I am trying to make.

And I agree with that whole heartedly only from a different vantage point.

No, not at all - astrology really is rubbish and if it is taught as anything else in schools then that is also outrageous.

Well, again we agree.

I think you need to drop this rant against abortion and linking it with science..
It is off topic, and your emotional slant on this makes it something we could not discuss in a rational manner.
If you want to talk about abortions, let's start a thread on it - is that OK?

So when I suggest that something is "disgraceful" I am ranting and it is an emotional slant but when you use the word "disgraceful" about a subject, then we can have a rational discussion? Hmmmm.... Seems kind of hypocritical to me or at the least an attempt at intellectual bullying. Either way it didn't work. I was not being emotional or ranting. I was merely countering what your objections were regarding the school teaching about Nessie in LA with things that I also find disgraceful and objectionable. As far as I am concerned we don't need to talk about abortions at all... unless of course, YOU want to. If so let me know.

Examples wold be nice, then I might be able to comment on them.

I gave you examples in general. You live in this world. You put yourself forward as one who know about science then you should know what I am talking about. I'm not interested in tracking down specific incidents so that we can debate them or not. It happens and unless you live in a bubble of denial you know they do..."in the name of science."

No, they don't. I'm no expert, but I don't see anything in the US constitution that protects the rights of those who teach rubbish as fact. Besides, even if it is legal, is it the morally right thing to do?

Yes, they do have a right to teach their beliefs. What you see as rubbish may not be rubbish to others. BTW there's plenty of rubbish taught in schools all over. Why pick on this one little school in LA? I'll tell you ... religious bias and that is all!! I say to that (and not only to you), MYOB!! Worry about your own children and leave other peoples children and their choice of where they go to school alone! You want them to leave you alone with their beliefs so you should practice what you preach!!

I don't see how religious institutions in AMerica, which are among the most financlially powerful in the country, have been left out of the loop with funding?

When I say "we" have been left out of the loop, I am referring to private schools and referring to the funding you were complaining about in you original post. Also, that funding comes in the form of vouchers for the families to help them with tuition not necessarily to the schools. The parents pay taxes which cover public schools and when they don't send their children to the public schools because they are not happy with the materials that are being taught, then they should have a right to expect some return to them from the taxes they pay to help them pay tuition at private schools. That's how it works and I don't think that should be denied them.

Have you seen how much money these mega-churches and TV shows pull in?

Yes, (and I hope your not ranting here) I have and I find nothing wrong with that. I don't know which churches you are talking about but the ones I know about take it in and send it out. They are involved in countless ministries all over the world. That's expensive. TV airtime is expensive. Why don't you check out what they are doing with the money rather than just complaining that it is coming in. People willing support those ministries and I am one of them. I have no problem with that. Hollywood, the media, athletes, education systems, corporations, etc. are all wealthy and don't do half as much for this world as the gospel does but no one seems to mind their opulence but let a church get some of it and people can't stand it. I say Praise God!! It's time the church began to demonstrate that truth in the gospel, also.

There is only one way that you could demonstrate this, and that is with evidence.
If it is true, that people are better off, live better lives etc with God in their lives then you would have few objections to universal religious education.
Unfortunately, many of us see it as a harmful side to a child's education.

The problem with universal religious education it that it would be almost impossible to do. Firstly, the unbeliever would be trying to get in and then change all the criteria to fit their agenda and eventually you would have people breaking off again and going on their own. No that is not the solution. The solution is to follow your own advice and leave those alone who don't think or believe like you do and let them believe what they want. But we know that isn't going to happen because the light shines on darkness and the darkness hates it.

There is evidence all around you but you have to be willing to look at it.

NailsII · Jul 2, 2012

Inan3 said:
Well, you don't know what area of expertise he is in now do you?

Of course, the Scottish tourist industry might well reap a dividend from the craziness of the American education system. Nessie expert Tony Drummond, who leads tours as part of Cruise Loch Ness, has a few words of advice to the US schools in question: come to the loch and try to find the monster.

source: The Herald Scotland

Inan3 said:
The "expert" said "unexplainable YOU said "If the sonar really is unexplainable then no amount of research will ever uncover the truth, right?" I simply was answering YOUR question "... then no amount of research will ever uncover the truth, right?" Again I answer, "NO" to your question. That suggestion is WRONG!" Just because something is unexplainable does not mean that research could not find an answer and make it more explainable.

"We do get regular sonar contacts which are pretty much unexplainable. More research has to be done, but it's not way along the realms of possibility."

source: The Herald Scotland
If something is unexplained, then more more research may discover an answer.
If something is unexplainable, then you are presuming that it cannot be explained, and hence further research is futile.

This really is a silly point to be arguing over, so I will not go over this again! (so if you think I'm wrong, I shall stay wrong!)

Inan3 said:
Yes, it is more than "something that people do" it is how most of the information is passed along on the net.

It is a shame that many people do not learn - and value - critical thinking skills such as investigating sources and researching before they form an opinion.

Inan3 said:
And I agree with that whole heartedly only from a different vantage point.

At least we agree on something!

Inan3 said:
Well, again we agree.

Wow, twice in a row!

Inan3 said:
So when I suggest that something is "disgraceful" I am ranting and it is an emotional slant but when you use the word "disgraceful" about a subject, then we can have a rational discussion?

Teaching a fantasy as the truth to children really is a disgrace.
I didn't use one word in particular to determine that you were ranting and forming an emotionally-charged argument.
Basically I was trying to avoid discussing it - nothing personal, I just don't think it is the right time or place.

Inan3 said:
Hmmmm.... Seems kind of hypocritical to me or at the least an attempt at intellectual bullying. Either way it didn't work. I was not being emotional or ranting.

I could take offence to that, but I know that is not what you mean.
I am neither a hypo or a bully. You are attempting to discuss an emotionally charged issue which would be massively off topic.
If you would like to discuss it, point me to a thread. (I might not take you up on the offer though)
If I have misread your post then I apologise, I got the impression that you were ranting.
It wasn't meant as an insult; just an observation.

Inan3 said:
I was merely countering what your objections were regarding the school teaching about Nessie in LA with things that I also find disgraceful and objectionable. As far as I am concerned we don't need to talk about abortions at all... unless of course, YOU want to. If so let me know.

I'd rather not ta.

Inan3 said:
I gave you examples in general. You live in this world. You put yourself forward as one who know about science then you should know what I am talking about. I'm not interested in tracking down specific incidents so that we can debate them or not. It happens and unless you live in a bubble of denial you know they do..."in the name of science."

Specifics make for clarity, which (in my opinion) makes for a better debate.
i will ignore the last sentance here, cos it's a little bit silly.

Inan3 said:
Yes, they do have a right to teach their beliefs. What you see as rubbish may not be rubbish to others. BTW there's plenty of rubbish taught in schools all over. Why pick on this one little school in LA? I'll tell you ... religious bias and that is all!! I say to that (and not only to you), MYOB!!

If they were teaching that Allah is the only god, that Jesus was a prophet whose message was deliberately altered and that all non-muslims should die a horrible death - would that be OK?

This isn't about religious bias, it is about what we know is true, and what we should know isn't.

Inan3 said:
Worry about your own children and leave other peoples children and their choice of where they go to school alone! You want them to leave you alone with their beliefs so you should practice what you preach!!

I don't care about the beliefs of others, as long as they don't impinge on my life.
The issue here is that we are discussing a school, where children go to learn, being taught absolute rubbish.
I'm not really bothered about the teaching of religion in American schools, that you can include in your blanket of beliefs that people are entitled to.
Teaching lies as fact is not a good way to educate by anyones standards.

Inan3 said:
When I say "we" have been left out of the loop, I am referring to private schools and referring to the funding you were complaining about in you original post. Also, that funding comes in the form of vouchers for the families to help them with tuition not necessarily to the schools. The parents pay taxes which cover public schools and when they don't send their children to the public schools because they are not happy with the materials that are being taught, then they should have a right to expect some return to them from the taxes they pay to help them pay tuition at private schools. That's how it works and I don't think that should be denied them.

Is there a limit on what people should be allowed to be taught to children then, if the parents are paying for it?
Would it be acceptable to open a school for Scientologist families, if the parents were paying for it.
What about an Islamic school, which is funded from the sale of oil to America....

Inan3 said:
Yes, (and I hope your not ranting here) I have and I find nothing wrong with that. I don't know which churches you are talking about but the ones I know about take it in and send it out. They are involved in countless ministries all over the world. That's expensive. TV airtime is expensive. Why don't you check out what they are doing with the money rather than just complaining that it is coming in. People willing support those ministries and I am one of them. I have no problem with that. Hollywood, the media, athletes, education systems, corporations, etc. are all wealthy and don't do half as much for this world as the gospel does but no one seems to mind their opulence but let a church get some of it and people can't stand it. I say Praise God!! It's time the church began to demonstrate that truth in the gospel, also.

I wish I had never suggested you were ranting, I should have known I would get it back in my face!
It would be nice if someone started to demonstrate the truth of the gospel....

Inan3 said:
The problem with universal religious education it that it would be almost impossible to do. Firstly, the unbeliever would be trying to get in and then change all the criteria to fit their agenda and eventually you would have people breaking off again and going on their own. No that is not the solution. The solution is to follow your own advice and leave those alone who don't think or believe like you do and let them believe what they want. But we know that isn't going to happen because the light shines on darkness and the darkness hates it.

Is that actually supposed to mean anything?
I'm not sure if you remember, but we had a conversation a few years ago about religious education in schools. In the UK, we don't have your 1st amendment, so RE is compulsory. I could opt my children out of RE, but I have not done this.
i want them to have a good, well rounded education - the same as other children.
RE taught in RE is fine by me - but I do object to any religion or superstition being taught in a science class.

Inan3 said:
There is evidence all around you but you have to be willing to look at it.

I look at the same evidence as you every day, but I come to a different conclusion.
On this I think we should just agree to disagree, because we both know that we could discuss this until the end of time and be no nearer to a compromise....

Flatland · Jul 2, 2012

If the Lochness Monster disproves Evolution then the Flying Spaghetti Monster disproves Creationism.

selfinflikted said:
This makes me want to punch babies.

Does this make me a horrible excuse for a human being?

(No, I don't really punch babies)

Not if it's creationist babies.

Inan3 · Jul 4, 2012

Loudmouth said:
And yet you claim that there is no evidence for evolution. That would require you to understand the information and be able to judge it for yourself. Now that the evidence sits firmly on the side of evolution you are all of the sudden ignorant of the evidence. Sorry, it's too late for that. You don't get to tell the world that there is no evidence for evolution and then play dumb when that evidence is put forward.

That is not a problem for using ERV's as genetic markers for determining common ancestry. Where in my earlier posts did I state that ERV's are evidence of common ancestry because they have no function? Nowhere did I ever state this. NOWHERE. It is the random insertion of retroviruses that allows them to be used as phylogenetic markers.

I am not playing dumb at all. I have often stated that I am not knowledgeable in science. I don't want to be nor do I need to be!! Others are and there are those who don't see ERV markers as evidence of common ancestry. They may be evidence of other things but it doesn't PROVE we have a common ancestor. In truth there is NO true evidence that proves we have a common ancestor. There are just things in common from the Designer Who is our common Creator. That is not hard to see. It's just something that some people don't want to accept. Science does not prove that we are not Created as separate and individual species it only surmises that we are. Even the evidence we do have only suggests likenesses. It can never prove it!

And I know that God does exist and is not a figment of my imagination or of the imagination of millions of people from all walks of life. And no amount of science will ever convince me otherwise. It's too late, God has made Himself known to me. I would never leave Him for .... for.... I don't know... What is it that you would want a person to stop believing in God for? I don't get it nor will I ever. I was without God once and believe me I would NEVER want to go back to that.... EVER!!

Peace!!

Loch Ness Monster debunks evolution

Contributor

Blah

Veteran Saint

Question everything

Veteran Saint

Question everything

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Life-long student of biological science

Living and dying in 3/4 time

Life-long student of biological science

Living and dying in 3/4 time

Life-long student of biological science

Veteran Saint

Life-long student of biological science

Junior Member

Veteran Saint

Similar threads