Another creationist is wrong

BradC · Jul 14, 2007

Baggins said:
You still seem to think that not changing your ideas to conform to the factual evidence is a weakness in science.

Absolutly not.
I guess you diddn't get the point of my post at all. But then, why should that surprise me in the slightest? I'll type really slow so you might be able to understand what I said.
If you say fact A is proof that evolution occured.
Being fact A = 97% of our DNA is junk
Now that fact A is no longer true??? (What the? I thought it was proven thus making it a FACT!)
So now we have fact B that you have to make fit your paradigm (or restraint if you like), this is where you change the word "Junk" to what ever fits the bill.

AV1611VET · Jul 14, 2007

Split Rock said:
It's not because we don't "listen," its because of all the contradictory and absurd stuff Creationists come up with.

Why does that bother you? "Scientists" do the exact same thing - (only better).

Are you telling me that "scientists" are always in 100% agreement?

Let me ask you three very simple questions:

According to "scientists":

How big is this universe?
How old is this universe?
What is the speed of light in a vacuum?

Of course, you're not going to answer these two, because you don't know.

You don't know because "scientists":

Constantly adjust the figures.
Don't agree 100% with the current figures.
Bicker and argue with each other too much.

When Pluto was downgraded to a dwarf planet --- by vote --- was the vote unanimous?

Point one finger at us, and three point back.

Atheuz · Jul 14, 2007

AV1611VET said:
Why does that bother you? "Scientists" do the exact same thing - (only better).

Are you telling me that "scientists" are always in 100% agreement?

Let me ask you three very simple questions:

According to "scientists":

How big is this universe?

How old is this universe?

What is the speed of light in a vacuum?

Of course, you're not going to answer these two, because you don't know.

You don't know because "scientists":

Constantly adjust the figures.

Don't agree 100% with the current figures.

Bicker and argue with each other too much.

When Pluto was downgraded to a dwarf planet --- by vote --- was the vote unanimous?

Point one finger at us, and three point back.

There's where you're wrong. Upgrading Science to better fit the Science is better than staying stagnant for 2000 years and just changing the names of the things involved because several courts said it isn't science.

1. The current observable Universe is 78 billion light years across. 24 parsecs in sciency words.(Note the world observable, it may be bigger, but we can't currently look further with current technology which is why we advance our technology and keep asking questions. If we just accepted God did it we would be in the dark ages still - No computers, no tv, no medicine except the ones "witches" made, but of course those people would be killed by Christians because they're bad and immoral!)

2. The observable Universe's age has been set to 13.7 Billion years old, with an uncertainty of 200 million years.(Note the word observable)

3. The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 metres per second (1,079,252,848.8 km/h). This one probably won't change.

Pluto was made a dwarf planet because there are several Pluto-sized objects in our solar system with a moon, meaning we would have to include several more in our solar system as planets or change the definition of planet, we choose the ladder in a vote.

I hope this post made it obvious to you that change is good, if we didn't continously made efforts to improve our technology we would be going nowhere, we would be in the dark ages and everybody with knowledge on how to cure diseases would be labelled as a witch and killed. Change is good, stagnancy is not.

AV1611VET · Jul 14, 2007

Atheuz said:
Pluto was made a dwarf planet because there are several Pluto-sized objects in our solar system with a moon, meaning we would have to include several more in our solar system as planets or change the definition of planet, we choose the ladder in a vote.

Conveniently skipped over my question about Pluto, didn't you?

Instead, you couldn't resist telling me why Pluto was downgraded.

For the second time:

Was the vote unanimous?

Atheuz · Jul 14, 2007

AV1611VET said:
Conveniently skipped over my question about Pluto, didn't you?

Instead, you couldn't resist telling me why Pluto was downgraded.

For the second time:

Was the vote unanimous?

Seriously, I'm not an unending source of information :/ I don't know. The majority voted for the new definition of planet and thus it got downgraded to dwarf planet. Votes don't have to be unanimous, votes for presidency aren't unanimous - Are you going to doubt the authority of the president until it's an unanimous vote? or any votes for laws where it just requires the majority? Are you going to break those laws because they aren't unanimously voted for?

AV1611VET · Jul 14, 2007

Atheuz said:
Votes don't have to be unanimous...

Tell that to Split Rock --- he's the one pouting because two (or more) Christians contradict each other.

Baggins · Jul 14, 2007

BradC said:
Absolutly not.
I guess you diddn't get the point of my post at all. But then, why should that surprise me in the slightest? I'll type really slow so you might be able to understand what I said.
If you say fact A is proof that evolution occured.
Being fact A = 97% of our DNA is junk
Now that fact A is no longer true??? (What the? I thought it was proven thus making it a FACT!)
So now we have fact B that you have to make fit your paradigm (or restraint if you like), this is where you change the word "Junk" to what ever fits the bill.

I wasn't interested in your Junk DNA arguments. I was just interested in the way that you think learning new things is bad.

It is typical creationist thinking. You are terrified of change because a change in your beliefs would bring your world view crashing down.

You project this fear onto scientists, because you know nowt about science.

Whereas the contrary is true scientists see change as of the geatest benefit to science.

Scientists used to think one thing about junk DNA ( it was never a fact, it was an interpretation of the evidence ), they learnt more about it and decided they were wrong and changed their interpretation of the evidence. The evidence has not been changed to fit the paradigm, the paradigm has been changed to fit the evidence.

Also you claim that the former interpretation was proven, whereas any scientist will tell you that nothing is ever proven in science, theories are either strrengthened or disproven by new evidence, never proven, if something was proven it would mean that no future contrary evidence would be examined.

As far as you are concerned this is a glaring error with science, and all that proves is, as I have already said, you know nothing about the subject.

I hope this has cleared up som of the egregious errors in your beliefs about what science is and what it does.

Seriously; have you considered learning what science is rather than continuiing to believe the distorted view you have at the moment?

Even 20 mins on wikipedia would probably put you pretty much straight, it doesn't seem like a large outlay to stop yourself appearing so ignorant to me.

USincognito · Jul 14, 2007

Atheuz, let me give you a little bit of advice when it comes to the current head village idiot here (what with dad leaving, the spot was open). Just ignore AV1611VET's posts.

For him, all knowledge stopped when he was born, so the fact that Kuiper objects larger than Pluto/Charon were discovered outside the previous diameter of the solar system don't matter, Pluto was declared a planet in 1938 and therefore must be a planet forever and anyone, even a consensus of astronomers, who says it isn't is lying and trying to rewrite history.

And before you even think about it, no, he doesn't see the same problem with his AV1611 KJVonly Bible stripping books which had been deemed Cannonical for 1300ish years, not because new discoveries had found extra-solar objects larger than what was previously described as a planet and calling them all planets would have added possibly dozens to the solar system (or any other logical reason like that), but because some monk decided he didn't like the content.

Trying to argue with AV1611VET is worse than casting pearls before swine, it's more like shoving them down the swine's throat and expecting them to be pooped out as diamonds. Just ingore his comments.

Split Rock · Jul 14, 2007

AV1611VET said:
Why does that bother you? "Scientists" do the exact same thing - (only better).

Are you telling me that "scientists" are always in 100% agreement?

No, but they eventually reach a consensus. They can do this because as evidence accumulates, it becomes more and more clear which hypothesis is correct (or more correct) as competing hypotheses become falsified. Creationists cannot do this, because evidence means nothing to them. It is only their interpretation of Holy Scripture that matters, and each one interpretes at least some passages differently then the other does. That is why there is no "creation science" curriculum to teach, even when states or school boards have mandated teaching them.

AV1611VET said:
Let me ask you three very simple questions:

According to "scientists":

How big is this universe?

How old is this universe?

What is the speed of light in a vacuum?

Of course, you're not going to answer these two, because you don't know.

Atheuz was kind enough to answer the questions for me. The speed of light in a vacuum is certainly not going to change, except become more refined (known to more significant digits) over time. So there.

AV1611VET said:
You don't know because "scientists":

Constantly adjust the figures.

Don't agree 100% with the current figures.

Bicker and argue with each other too much.

When Pluto was downgraded to a dwarf planet --- by vote --- was the vote unanimous?

LOL! Back to Pluto again!

Tell me something AVET... what was the definition of a "Planet" according to astronomers before the change took place? I bet you cannot tell me!

AV1611VET said:
Point one finger at us, and three point back.

Yes, it is called "projection." That is why Creationists accuse scientists of all the things they themselves are guilty of... such as lying, deception, clinging to dogma, cherry-picking, etc, etc.

AV1611VET said:
Tell that to Split Rock --- he's the one pouting because two (or more) Christians contradict each other.

LOL! Two or more, huh? Try all of them!

I tell you what, I will withdraw my remarks if you can give me a definition of the following:

1. A Biblical Kind or Baramin. This must include a means of determining if two species are the members of the same Baramin, or different Baramins.

2. A definition of "Information" in terms of DNA, This must include a means of determining how much information a given DNA sequence contains.

These are basic issues that Creationists themselves have raised, but cannot for the life of themselves come up with anything clear and defined.

RealityCheck · Jul 15, 2007

AV1611VET said:
Tell that to Split Rock --- he's the one pouting because two (or more) Christians contradict each other.

So Christianity is a big democracy now, where the beliefs of the majority define what "real Christianity" is?

Oooh, then you're not a...

BradC · Jul 15, 2007

Baggins said:
I wasn't interested in your Junk DNA arguments. I was just interested in the way that you think learning new things is bad.

Of course you were'nt interested in the junk DNA senario because it has been an arguementative tool used by you lot for some time now. Remember this one from a few pages back

Valkhorn said:
Junk DNA is a pretty solid indicatorof Evolution. We inherited all of that DNA from our ancestors. I don't know where you got the idea that it is quote 'waiting for us to evolve'.

Seems like you really don't know what Evolution is nor have you done your homework.

For the sake of good, show me where in any of my posts, have I in the slightest way implied learning new things is bad.
As for the rest of your post, it's so full of assumption it certainly does fall into the 'egregious'

Baggins · Jul 15, 2007

BradC said:
Of course you were'nt interested in the junk DNA senario because it has been an arguementative tool used by you lot for some time now. Remember this one from a few pages back

For the sake of good, show me where in any of my posts, have I in the slightest way implied learning new things is bad.
As for the rest of your post, it's so full of assumption it certainly does fall into the 'egregious'

The implication is obvious; you ridicule science and scientists for coming to new conclusions about "junk" DNA based on new research.

This proves:

-You know nothing about how science works.

-You project your own fear of change onto science.

-Thus implying that you don't like learning.

In your fundie mindset, you have been taught the absolute truth and nothing can now alter that. You then project this fear of change onto science, but science welcomes change, it is what drives forward our understanding of the world and our place in it.

It seems that you fail to grasp this fundamental point.

Although I should think it has sunk in by now, as this is the third time I have made this simple but fundamental point.

I am not making asumptions about you, I am making deductions based on the evidence you have left on this board, I am being scientific

Have you got anything meaningful or useful to say about the way science has dealt with the issue of "Junk" DNA?

At the moment all I see is an instructive lesson in how you misunderstand the way science operates to a quite staggering dergree.

Valkhorn · Jul 15, 2007

I was going to reply to BradC but Baggins took the words out of my mouth. Thanks!

AV1611VET · Jul 16, 2007

Split Rock said:
I tell you what, I will withdraw my remarks if you can give me a definition of the following:

Nope --- keep your remarks coming --- I enjoy them.

BradC · Jul 16, 2007

Valkhorn, I think you should reply considdering it was you that I ridiculing and not scientists.

Baggins, you have made your deductions on false assumptions with the tiniest amount of evidence. In typical evolutionary fashion you have started with your conclusion first (ie. 'fundie mindset' & 'fear of change') to say you have proven;
a.' You know nothing about how science works.'
This is incorrect by the way!
b. 'You project your own fear of change onto science.' This is also inncorect!
c. 'Thus implying that you don't like learning.' I'll type this real slow for ya so you can't missunderstand, Wrong again!

Originally Posted by Valkhorn

Junk DNA is a pretty solid indicatorof Evolution. We inherited all of that DNA from our ancestors. I don't know where you got the idea that it is quote 'waiting for us to evolve'.

Seems like you really don't know what Evolution is nor have you done your homework.

See you all in a weeks time.
Peace be with you, Brad.

Baggins · Jul 16, 2007

BradC said:
Valkhorn, I think you should reply considdering it was you that I ridiculing and not scientists.

Baggins, you have made your deductions on false assumptions with the tiniest amount of evidence. In typical evolutionary fashion you have started with your conclusion first (ie. 'fundie mindset' & 'fear of change') to say you have proven;
a.' You know nothing about how science works.'
This is incorrect by the way!
b. 'You project your own fear of change onto science.' This is also inncorect!
c. 'Thus implying that you don't like learning.' I'll type this real slow for ya so you can't missunderstand, Wrong again!

See you all in a weeks time.
Peace be with you, Brad.

Your post contradict you.

You may know a little science, but you obviously do not understand how it works and what drives it or you wouldn't have made the posts you did make.

So either:

A) you are all having a big joke with us and you are knowledgable about science.

B) Or you have been caught out making unsupported statements about the application of science by people who know rather more about science than you do and now you are trying to bluster your way out of the hole you've dug yourself into.

My money's on B, you have shown no real understanding of how science works and the way that new evidence and re-interpretation of evidence drives it forward.

This is typical of someone with fundamentalists beliefs because they believe they know the complete truth and therefore accept no contrary evidence that make shake the foundations of those beliefs. They project this view onto science thus seeing change and re-interpretation as a weakness, whereas scientists see it as a strength.

If I have mischaracterised you as a fundametalist christian I apologise, but in that case you haven't been able to convey how well you understand science in your posts, as you mindset comes across as if it was fundamentalist christian.

Your posts come across as if written by someone with a very poor grasp of the scientific method.

There is no point in mirroring my points back to me and typing "wrong", next to them, the only thing that will change my mind about your understanding of how science works is if you actually display some evidence of understanding how science works.

So far you have failed to do that.

I will refrain from asking you to expand on your problems with the change in how scientists view "junk" DNA as it appears you are away for a bit.

Loudmouth · Jul 16, 2007

BradC said:
If you say fact A is proof that evolution occured.
Being fact A = 97% of our DNA is junk

Fact A is that all DNA sequences fall into a nested hierarchy, including what is considered "junk DNA". Whether or not junk DNA has a function has nothing to do with the evidence for evolution. The other fact is that junk DNA is less homologous between species than functional genes. It is the lower evolutionary constraint on junk DNA that lead to the conclusion that it did not have sequence specific function, and it probably doesn't. I have long maintained that a better term is "vestigial DNA".

Also, the ENCODE scientists have already stated that much of the trascribed junk DNA probably doesn't have a function that impacts reproduction or fitness. You seemed to have ignored that part. If junk DNA does have function it is very probable that the function is not tied to DNA sequence but instead to DNA bulk.

Another creationist is wrong

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

It's comforting to know that this isn't a test

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

It's comforting to know that this isn't a test

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

a post by Alan Smithee

Conflation of Blathers

Senior Veteran

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency