Fairytale?

[Lilandra]

Of course, the choice is all yours, AR, but don't deceive yourself in thinking your own reason is without fault. It's very obvious that you have your own demons to deal with.

You are on some ego trip lady. You are the only one going on about demons. You are the only one in this thread that believes they are real.

I am not sure why, but Aron's opponents have a tendency to label him as the Devil, son of Satan, demon infested, etc.

Why don't you just admit that you don't have any evidence that anything you are saying is true? Why do you have to project all this evil onto him? Is it some sort of style issue? Has he posted something demonic?

We are friends in the real world and he is a big, scruffy teddybear of a man. Although, he doesn't like that spread around.

If evolution is truelly the poppycock you say it is, it should be a simple matter for you to tell us why.

First, if you could simply answer what evolution is, that would be a good place to start.

 

[Split Rock]

How could they know this when neither had been decoded a quarter of a century ago. It was just pulled out of the air and swallowed hook line and sinker by those who trusted them.

Here Inan provides a classic creationist smear attack with no knowledge of the facts but based entirely on what she wants to be true. She claims that scientists just made-up the 98% correlation between the genes of humans and apes. She bases this on the fact that the entire genome (not just genes) of both humans and chimps have ony recently been sequenced.

Whole genomic sequenceing has only been applied recently, but genes have been analysed since 1975.

Nails provides the facts that Inan was ignorant of when she smeared her "enemies" with mud.

Yes but to say that we are 98% similar to chimps could not be known until recently. So it is a deception to say so. Also, even a child is not 98% similar to it's parent so why try to make people believe chimps are 98% similar when in fact they are much less similar? My point of that post was to tell why I believe scientists state one thing and really don't have the evidence they purport.

How does Inan respond to learning she was wrong? Does she acknowlege that she was wrong in her accusation and apologize? NO. She continues on claiming it was "deception" to claim the 98% similarity.. but who claimed this? The media did, because it makes sound-bites out of everything. Does Inan blame the media? No. Evil deceptive evolutionist atheist scientists are to blame.

Sad.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes but to say that we are 98% similar to chimps could not be known until recently.

Why not? Because it disagrees with your a priori assumptions?

Also, even a child is not 98% similar to it's parent

Nonsense. Cite your source.

so why try to make people believe chimps are 98% similar when in fact they are much less similar?

Cite your source.

My point of that post was to tell why I believe scientists state one thing and really don't have the evidence they purport.

We believe scientists because THEY CITE THEIR SOURCES.

Their claims are verifiable, and independantly checkable. We do not have to take it on blind faith (unlike, say, Hovind's cancer-curing peach).

 

[Inan3]

Here Inan provides a classic creationist smear attack with no knowledge of the facts but based entirely on what she wants to be true. She claims that scientists just made-up the 98% correlation between the genes of humans and apes. She bases this on the fact that the entire genome (not just genes) of both humans and chimps have ony recently been sequenced.



Nails provides the facts that Inan was ignorant of when she smeared her "enemies" with mud.


How does Inan respond to learning she was wrong? Does she acknowlege that she was wrong in her accusation and apologize? NO. She continues on claiming it was "deception" to claim the 98% similarity.. but who claimed this? The media did, because it makes sound-bites out of everything. Does Inan blame the media? No. Evil deceptive evolutionist atheist scientists are to blame.

Sad.

And did Split Rock offer any enlightment on Inan3's error. No, he only provides classic evolutionists smearing.

Though, I appreciate NailsII courteous explanation he did not give me enough information to change my mind.

Therefore I find my own information.


…humans and chimps are not quite the close cousins we thought. Crude past comparisons of our DNA showed that our sequences were between 98.5% and 99% identical. That is indeed the case when considering single-letter differences in the DNA code, of which there are 35 million, adding up to about 1.2% of the total sequence. But there are other differences, Eichler says. The two sequences are littered with duplicated segments that are scattered in different ways in the two species, he reports in a separate analysis. These regions add another 2.7% of difference to the tally. "So the 1.2% figure is woefully inaccurate," says Eichler. (3)
Michael Hopkin, "Chimpanzee joins the genome club", news@nature.com, 31 August 2005, http://npg.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/050829-9.html



Behind the statistics
When we read headlines such as "scientists find man and chimp are genetically 99.44% similar" we are led to believe that these are fully objective and precise estimates. It is hard to think of something else, when the number even includes four tenth and four hundredth digits and "scientists" are doing the estimates! However, this impression is deceptive and merely supports the evolutionist bias of evolutionist scientists.
To uncover the bias, let us consider the two sequences comprising 20 DNA bases of below (bases, or nucleotides, are like the steps of the DNA ladder). They are from the same region of DNA, first being from the baboon and the second from orangutan. (4) If they are aligned in parallel rows, they reveal obvious differences. (Colored bases in italics indicate where sequences are different. A, T, G, C represent bases Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine respectively.)

If you are biased to express similarities, on taking a closer look, you can see that although the sequences are different, they include identical pieces. To make them look more similar, you may invoke a hypothetical gap and align them like this:

Now the sequences are almost identical. You have made them look as though the second sequence has lost (or the first one has gained) one nucleotide at the site where C and the gap reside. And if you make a calculation, you will find that percentage of similarity has significantly increased.
But there's a serious problem. You have added an element of subjective interpretation to the data.
And that is only a small amount compared to what you can do with larger sequences. Long sequences from two organisms almost never can be perfectly aligned in parallel rows, without any breaks in the continuity of nucleotides. This opens the door to interpreter to selectively align nucleotides, as he would like to see them.http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/widening_genetic_gap.htm#notes

 

[Inan3]

Why not? Because it disagrees with your a priori assumptions?


Nonsense. Cite your source.


Cite your source.


We believe scientists because THEY CITE THEIR SOURCES.

Their claims are verifiable, and independantly checkable. We do not have to take it on blind faith (unlike, say, Hovind's cancer-curing peach).

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v7i4f.htm

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Thank you for this explanation Pete, but I'm afraid I have some questions about it.

And I will (hopefully) have some answers.

In the first paragraph you indicated "a lot of this stuff that people think of when they think evolution is at least 50 years in the past". I really never knew much about evolution because as you stated "it's not exactly relevant to many people's immediate livelihoods" and I agree with that, BUT since I have been on this forum my education by the evolutionists here and my search on the internet has been mostly about the past 50 years of evolution "fossils, Darwin and natural selection, and if we're lucky, maybe something to do with inheritance." And it seemed it was the intent of each poster to let me know how much they were educated in ToE and understood it. Possibly they are the people you were speaking of who might think that they understand evolution.

I can't speak to other poster's understanding of evolution. However, there are a number of boni-fide biologists that post and have posted on this forum. I would wager that they probably have much more of an understanding of evolution than your average Joe.

As to the second paragrah, "much of the evidence for and subsequent application of evolutionary biology rests in genetics and genomics", I don't see where the application of these has been any more enlightening for evolution than the past 50 years. I didn't say it hasn't been more enlightening but I said more enlightening for evolution. Please explain how so, if you know. I'm sure you can put it in layman's terms.

Prior to genetics, scientists only really had fossils and existing species physiologies to go by when it came to evolution. The discovery of DNA and genetics resulted in a giant new dataset to add to the overall picture. In particular, scientists could now look the actual genetic code that was being changed and inherited via evolutionary mechanisms. And they also now begin comparing genetics between different species.

And they did just that. Prior to genetics, scientists would try to create "trees" (i.e. diagrams) that show how different species are related via evolution. With genetics, they can do the exact same thing, only using a new set of data. And what is really remarkable is that the trees they would create with genetics in general lined up pretty well with previous trees created with other methods. Now certainly there were some descrepencies, especially when it came to closely related species (for example, scientists used to think that gorillas and chimps were more closely related to each other than humans, but now they now chimps are more closely related to humans than gorillas). Regardless of descrepencies, however, the overall picture still pointed to patterns that suggest very strongly evolutionary common descent.

More recently (mainly in the last 10 years) scientists have been decoding whole genomes (i.e. the entire genetic code) for species including humans, chimps, and many others. And from this dataset, they are now doing complete genome-wide comparisons between species. And the verdict of these comparisons still points extremely strongly to evolutionary descent.

Third paragrah, so please tell me how it is used. How it iis needed in todays science. Please explain how is it "an applied science with relevance in today's biological industries" ? How "the real world has demonstrated otherwise"?

Please see post #266 of this thread, where I already answered that question.

As to your fourth paragraph, I suppose that is true about the media but we also, know it is not always the case, such as when there is a scientific discovery then I'm sure they get it all right.

They don't. Case in point was the story a number of years back about the speed of light being broken. The media sensationalized it (claiming just that, the speed of light was broken), even though that wasn't really the case. And the researchers whose work had been reported on apparently weren't happy with it either.

The problem is that the stories you get in the media have been heavily filtered. You have a journalist talking to scientists (one hopes) and interpreting their findings. The journalist then takes their own understanding and puts down a story (usually very brief) to try to convey those findings. Then the reader reads the jouranlists interpretation and further filters it through their own understanding, biases, etc. So going from the original findings to the end user, a lot of filtering has taken place. It's like the telephone game. Stuff gets mixed up and lost. The only way to really know what the findings were about is to go to the original published journal papers. But in order to do so, one needs a solid background understanding of the sciences involved, or it might as well be like trying to read a foreign language.

Really, media is a double edged sword. They do try to make things understood for the layman, but a LOT gets lost in translation in the process.

I hope that clarifies things. If you have more questions, I will try to answer them.

 

[Inan3]

And I will (hopefully) have some answers.



I can't speak to other poster's understanding of evolution. However, there are a number of boni-fide biologists that post and have posted on this forum. I would wager that they probably have much more of an understanding of evolution than your average Joe.



Prior to genetics, scientists only really had fossils and existing species physiologies to go by when it came to evolution. The discovery of DNA and genetics resulted in a giant new dataset to add to the overall picture. In particular, scientists could now look the actual genetic code that was being changed and inherited via evolutionary mechanisms. And they also now begin comparing genetics between different species.

And they did just that. Prior to genetics, scientists would try to create "trees" (i.e. diagrams) that show how different species are related via evolution. With genetics, they can do the exact same thing, only using a new set of data. And what is really remarkable is that the trees they would create with genetics in general lined up pretty well with previous trees created with other methods. Now certainly there were some descrepencies, especially when it came to closely related species (for example, scientists used to think that gorillas and chimps were more closely related to each other than humans, but now they now chimps are more closely related to humans than gorillas). Regardless of descrepencies, however, the overall picture still pointed to patterns that suggest very strongly evolutionary common descent.

More recently (mainly in the last 10 years) scientists have been decoding whole genomes (i.e. the entire genetic code) for species including humans, chimps, and many others. And from this dataset, they are now doing complete genome-wide comparisons between species. And the verdict of these comparisons still points extremely strongly to evolutionary descent.



Please see post #266 of this thread, where I already answered that question.



They don't. Case in point was the story a number of years back about the speed of light being broken. The media sensationalized it (claiming just that, the speed of light was broken), even though that wasn't really the case. And the researchers whose work had been reported on apparently weren't happy with it either.

The problem is that the stories you get in the media have been heavily filtered. You have a journalist talking to scientists (one hopes) and interpreting their findings. The journalist then takes their own understanding and puts down a story (usually very brief) to try to convey those findings. Then the reader reads the jouranlists interpretation and further filters it through their own understanding, biases, etc. So going from the original findings to the end user, a lot of filtering has taken place. It's like the telephone game. Stuff gets mixed up and lost. The only way to really know what the findings were about is to go to the original published journal papers. But in order to do so, one needs a solid background understanding of the sciences involved, or it might as well be like trying to read a foreign language.

Really, media is a double edged sword. They do try to make things understood for the layman, but a LOT gets lost in translation in the process.

I hope that clarifies things. If you have more questions, I will try to answer them.

Thanks, Pete

 

[Inan3]

You are on some ego trip lady. You are the only one going on about demons. You are the only one in this thread that believes they are real.

I am not sure why, but Aron's opponents have a tendency to label him as the Devil, son of Satan, demon infested, etc.

Why don't you just admit that you don't have any evidence that anything you are saying is true? Why do you have to project all this evil onto him? Is it some sort of style issue? Has he posted something demonic?

We are friends in the real world and he is a big, scruffy teddybear of a man. Although, he doesn't like that spread around.

If evolution is truelly the poppycock you say it is, it should be a simple matter for you to tell us why.

First, if you could simply answer what evolution is, that would be a good place to start.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I didn't mean literally "demons". I guess you never heard the saying, "having demons of your own", meaning having your own problems? That's all that was meant by it. Aron-Ra was throwing out quite a few accusations of his own so I pointed out that he was with out fault, either.

 

[The Bellman]

Their beliefs may change but the truth doesn't.

FoeHammer.

Irrelevant and not in dispute. We are discussing what people believe to be true.

So, you can't know that evolution is the truth but you believe it anyway? What's that if it's not faith?

It's belief based on evidence. It's how rational people (I include you) deal with the world. There are any number of things we don't know to be true but believe are true. You, me, we all do it, every day.

But the truth doesn't.

Doesn't matter, since we're not talking about the truth. We're talking about what people believe to be true.

It's not me talking in circles.

So you believe.

Wrong! I do know the truth.

You may well think you do.

 

[The Bellman]

Evolution is an outlook on life. It says life derived from nothing. Please don't tell me that that is abiogenesis for evolution looks for the common ancester and therefore it must answer where that common ancester comes from.

Evolution is not an outlook on life. It says absolutely nothing about life. It merely talks about how species came to be and how they change over time.

 

[Aron-Ra]

you don't see it as a viable truth only because you don't understand it.

There's the classic evo answer. "You don't understand it." Any child could understand evolution. There are pictures and lots of, "this is evidence" statements. The problem for you evolutionists is that anyone who is an independent "rational" thinker can see right through this propaganda.

If you were a rational thinker, you'd realize that all the 'propaganda" related to this matter is spewing from creationist sources -where no rational thinkers can be found.

It's just a bunch of multiple theories and nice little stories about each one, strung together with illustrations about this and about that, and put into all these cute little trees, that in no way can EVER be connected to a multimillion year old ancestor (because of lack of physical evidence) and then all put under one big heading of the THEORY of Evolution.

Once again, a THEORY the study of, and explanation for, a set of observed facts and associated laws. Evolutionary Theory is better-supported than the THEORY of gravity, and atomic THEORY has never been proven -even in Hiroshima. Yet it is still a certainty that all matter is made of atoms, and has gravity, and all life-forms evolve. Creationists know what theory really means. But it is inconvenient for them to admit that. So they'd rather pretend that it somehow implies uncertain guesswork rather than testibly accurate explanations of demonstrable facts.

I should also note that no part of creationism, including intelligent design, meets even one of the criteria required to be a theory. Creationism doesn't even count as an hypothesis!

The reason you can't see is you won't see.

That is a faith-based position which will never apply to me. So speak for yourself.

Someone told you that this is how it is and you fell for it hook line and sinker. When in actuality, the truth is that it is all theory. It might have happened this way or we predicted it happened this way or it probably happened this way. That's all evolution is a bunch of stories put together.

In your previous posts, the reason you demonstrated very clearly that you have no understanding of evolutionary theory at all, is because you have no understanding of science itself. There are no "stories". The conclusion is irrelevant. All that matters is the methodology; how we can zero in on the most accurate explanation. Creationists don't want that. I told you I could prove evolution to you, and I can, or I could if you hadn't refused to see anything you didn't want to admit was real.

As this thread asks, Fairytale? Answer: YES!

Prove it. We've already shown that a fairy tale is an oft-recited traditional but implausable story which includes magical enchantments and folklorish characters like giants, unicorns, and talking animals. Obviously creationism counts as a fairy tale. But evolution, on the other hand, is objectively demonstrable myriad different ways including by direct observation in real time.

So I challenge you to produce any published definition of fairy tale which you think you can apply to the perspective of science.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Define what you think scientists are talking about, but that you haven't seen any "evidence" for yet.

A quarter-century of genetic studies has consistently found that for any given region of the genome, humans and chimpanzees share at least 98.5% of their DNA. This means that a very small portion of human DNA is responsible for the traits that make us human, and that a handful of genes somehow confer everything from an upright gait to the ability to recite poetry and compose music Gibbons, Science, Vol. 281. 4 Sep 1998, “Which of Our Genes Make Us Human?” pp. 1432-1434

How could they know this when neither had been decoded a quarter of a century ago. It was just pulled out of the air and swallowed hook line and sinker by those who trusted them.

Trust doesn't work in science because of the peer review process.

As has already been explained, they knew the number of genes before they ever sequenced every codon in the the genome. We have identified the percentages of similar genes in many many other species, but (IIRC) we only have complete sequencing for ourselves and chimpanzees so far.

And far from "swallowing" anything, I did sit through lectures about this with a college professor who was both cited in Nature for her contribution as a geneticist with the human genome project, and who was also a Protestant Christian and an active leader in her church. She promoted religion on faith and evolution from personal experience. I can only weigh what I consider the probability that she likely knows more about genetics than you do, and likely isn't working against the religion she supports.

With the discovery of the new, well dated specimens from Ileret, H. habilis and H. erectus can now be shown to have co-occurred in eastern Africa for nearly half a million years. Previously, the most recent occurrence of H. habilis was at 1.65 Myr ago or older (OH 13). KNM-ER 42703 now provides a reliable and substantially younger age of 1.44 Myr. The earliest occurrence of specimens with affinities to H. habilis is at approximately 2.33 Myr ago at Hadar (A.L. 666), but H. habilis (sensu stricto) first appears in eastern Africa at about 1.9 Myr ago (for example, OH 24). Diagnostic evidence of H. erectus appears in the African record at about the same time (that is, KNM-ER 2598), and the youngest African fossils attributed to that taxon are dated to circa 1.0 Myr ago (for example, OH 12, Daka, KNM-OG 45500). Spoor, Leakey, et al., Nature, 9 August 2007, “Implications of new early Homo fossils from Ileret, east of Lake Turkana, Kenya” pages 688-691

Press coverage regarding above news.

The fossils, discovered in eastern Africa, challenge the understanding that humans evolved one after another like a line of dominoes, from ancient Homo habilis to Homo erectus and eventually to Homo sapiens, or modern people. 2 Julie Steenhuysen, Reuters, August 8, 2007, “Fossils paint new picture of human evolution”

The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution - that one of those species evolved from the other. And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man. 3Seth Borenstein, Associated Press, August 9, 2007,” Evolution revolution creates stir”

The paper is based on fossilized bones found in 2000. The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said. 4ibid

I discussed this with the Leakeys myself, (both Richard and Maeve) about three years ago. They, like many other paleoanthropologists argued that human evolution should not be thought of as a linear progression of one species progressively advancing according to the traditional image, where the ancestral lineage always disappears with the arrival of the new version.

Because its not that way. Human evolution is no different than most other groups in that it should be seen as a tree -with some families co-existing for long periods. I've known for decades that H. habilis co-existed with other human groups. H. erectus did also, and so did Paranthropines. But even though erectines could still have arisen from habilines, (and may in fact only be different versions of the same interbreeding species) the Leakeys argued in favor of their own find, saying that they believed Homo erectus actually evolved from Kenyanthropus platyops, in which case, H. erectus and H. habilis/rudolfensis would be sister species.

But what I want to know from you is, what point were you trying to make? How does creationism account for all these sub-human humans? According to your perspective, none of these species should even exist.

(see answer above)

Yes, I see that when you said you'd never seen any convincing evidence of evolution, and still apparently had some erroneous idea of what evolution was, then I asked you to define what you think evolution is, and to list whatever evidence you still needed to see. You still haven't answered either part of that question; neither what you think evolution is -that you object to it so much, nor what you would accept as convincing evidence for it. I'm still waiting for both those answers.

What I know is it's not rational to think that it is all about you, AR -

Nor did I ever think it was. I thought this was about you.

I didn't answer this because quite frankly I didn't get to it and it just kinda left my mind after that, but I see it didn't leave yours -

I admit I was a bit irritated when I reminded you about this question a second time in post # 272. But that "kinda left your mind" too.

I'm not afraid of answering anything or anyone nor am I afraid to say I don't have the answer - so don't assume you know what's going on in MY head or heart unless I say it to you - gotta get rid of the bitterness, AR, it's going to eat you up and then spit you out if you don't

There is a lot of bitterness on this thread. But its all yours. I have nothing to be bitter about. As far as I'm concerned, I'm trying to help you. And if I could get through to you, I know from past experience how your mind will awaken and that you will thank me for it later. I think you are afraid to answer my question, and that's why you still haven't yet.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v7i4f.htm

Argument from incredulity. They (the authors) can't see the difference between comparative DNA analysis, and complete genome sequencing.

They also think misunderstand why the percentage similarity in Chimp & Human DNA (which is, by the way, an undeniable 98%) is used as evidence for our common ancestry. It is evidence preciesly because it is predicted by the theory of that humans and chimps share an ancestor: if the theory is true, we'd expect to see very similar DNA. We do, so therefore we have evidence that it is true.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I have read many testimonies from ancient times and from the modern day of people's "personal knowledge" and spiritual communion with Buddha, Muhammad, Ahura-Mazda, Guru Nanak, and the spirits of dead friends, lovers, and relatives. All of them claim confident knowledge of absolute truth, yet all of them cannot be correct. Would you tell me they're all deceived and only you know the real way?

Whether they are deceived or not is not up to me to decide BUT everything you have stated is indicative that there is another realm that is not the natural realm and that is the spiritual realm. People do have true encounters with real spirits some good some bad but nevertheless they are just as real as the natural realm.

As the supernatural is commonly described as a dream-like realm, then when these experiences are compared to the natural plane, they still couldn't be comparatively "real" even if they were true. And they never are true, I'm sorry to say. I'm being sincere. I really am sorry that I have to be academically correct with that statement. Because I would rather believe you on this.

While I would readily and gladly concede that all these testimonies could well imply some astral componant to the universe which only especially adept seers can perceive, I have some reservations to that, largely because I was once an accomplished occultist myself and I've come to realize how all these supernatural visions and encounters work. I realized I could make anyone "sense" (see/hear/feel) anything, as long as it was something they already believed in. Krsna cannot reveal himself to Christians and the Madonna will never manifest before a Muslim. And this, lumped in with my other numerous experiences with neopagans and transcendental meditationalists, and my constant disappointment at seeing everything I believed in systematically disproved scientifically -prompted me to wonder; why is it that all of the claims of the supernatural are deniable, never verifiable, and why is it that such things are only ever promoted by the least credible people possible?

Orwellian dementia; "rationalism is irrational", "faith is reason", "intelligence is stupid", "gullability is wisdom", and "assuming your own subjective emotional conclusions for no reason counts as evidence",

A whole lot of twisting of what I said going on here and some of it could be considered flaming but don't worry I'm not going to report you like I've been reported because I'm not offended. I could only be offended if there was just the smallest bit of truth about what you have said, but obviously it is more about ranting and raving than any semblance truth.

Odd that the smallest bits of truth should offend you but you can look right past great heaping blocks of it.

Sanity is often defined as being rational, to be able to reason logically and to be reasoned with. But faith is irrational, illogical, unreasonable, and insane by definition.

Two definitions for the infamous Wikipedia:

Insanity, or madness, is a general popular and legal term defining behavior influenced by mental instability.

Sanity considered as a legal term denotes that an individual is of sound mind and therefore can bear legalresponsibility for his or her actions.

Neither of these definitions fits your "opinion" of what sanity or insanity is. Just because you rant and rave and beat your chest and roar the loudest does not make your interpretation of things correct.

Encarta and Dictionary.com both say it is "reasonableness" and being able to make rational decisions. Merriam Webster's dictionary agrees that "sane" = "rational", which it defines as a dependance on reason. Amusingly, wikipedia's definition of "insanity" also cites Merriam Webster's description, "lacking understanding".

I am very sane and so is my faith and the faith of millions of other believers. You may disagree with that but just because Aron Rah says it, does not make it so! Maybe in you neck of the jungle it does; where it seems the beating of the chest and loudest roar intimidates those within hearing range but here it falls on ears that are unafraid of your seeming prowess. I am not impressed so go back to you cave or tree and stop monkeying around because your fit has revealed or changed nothing!

...yet. Because it is not my ranting fits, nor could it be since I haven't come close to that. It is simply that I really am right about what I said, and can obviously prove it. I'm also right about the fact that faith is irrational, illogical, and unreasonable, again by definition.

we both know that the creationism movement is based entirely on falsehoods and deliberately dishonest propaganda. None of you cares for the truth if it is not what you wish it to be. That's why there has never been a single credible proponent of evangelical creationism anywhere ever.Nor has there ever been a single argument in favor of creationism which was verifiably accurate. Every claim creationists ever make in this debate falls into one of two categories; those things which can never be either vindicated or disproved, and those things which have already been disproved.

This is a bunch of blabbering which really doesn't warrant an answer.

Actually that was a direct challenge for you to produce a single verifiably accurate argument in favor of creationism, or a single proponant of creationism who did not resort to the tactics listed above. I think we both know you can't cite a single example of either one, and we both already know why that is.

Why did you highlight my use of 'verifiably' in blue?

Of course, the choice is all yours, AR, but don't deceive yourself in thinking your own reason is without fault. It's very obvious that you have your own demons to deal with.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong about everything all the time? I've been wrong before, and I didn't like it. So I try to improve my reasoning such that I never make erroneous assumptions and indefensible claims the way you always do.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Here's another reason why creationism is a form of idolatry; they're unable to distinguish doctrine from deity. We all know that people tell stories, and mere fallable men write a lot of books. All of these books credit human authors, and none among them say they were written by a god instead. We know that all these books had human editors too, and we know of many revisions and omissions made by human scribes often for political reasons. Gods don't write books; people do. But -who wrote what we can all read in the rocks? Or mitochondrial DNA? Because mere humans couldn't be responsible for that.

Well, who did then, Aron-Ra?

When I was a Christian, I thought it was YHWH. But even as a Taoist, I still saw evolution as intelligently-guided, albeit not by a "god" per se. I figured a supreme intellect would have known how badly men would corrupt whatever they wrote into their scriptures. So if some supernatural entity ever wanted us to know the real truth, then it would have conceived of things like fossilization and leaving in traceable phylogenies in our genes, things we could verify for certain without need of faith and regardless what we'd rather believe. I no longer believe in anything supernatural. But if I did, evolution would be my strongest indication of that.

 

[Split Rock]

And did Split Rock offer any enlightment on Inan3's error. No, he only provides classic evolutionists smearing.

Wow. The best you can do is to parrot what I wrote?

COLOR=blue][/COLOR]
Though, I appreciate NailsII courteous explanation he did not give me enough information to change my mind.

There is no amount of information that would change your mind... is there?

Therefore I find my own information.

Yeah, from Harun Yahya ... and you pretend he knows better about genetic sequencing then scientists who are actually trained to do it. Even if you believe his rubbish, where in your source do we find support for your assertion that the 98% figure was made-up from thin air?

 

[FoeHammer]

Evolution is without a reasonable doubt.

From microbes to men is not without reasonable doubt. If it were then it would be absolutely true but, by your own admission (below), you, as a fallible human, cannot know that it is... do try to be consistent.

You do not understand the "empirical scientific evidence" and when provided with an explanation of it, you reject it out of hand because it disagrees with your Faith.

That life originated somehow and, via a process of billions upon billions upon who knows how many mistakes, produced man in all his complexities is a ridiculous notion. Combine that with the pathetic attempts by some to explain how it happened and you are right (for once), I do dismiss it.

Who are you trying to fool here, Us.. or yourself??

No-one, I can't be fooled and you already have been.

Are we going to play word-games with "absolute truth" like you have been doing with "faith?" Absolute Truth is something known for complete certainty without even a small possibility of being wrong. It is unattainable by fallible humans.

There’s a difference between the absolute truth of a matter and the absolute truth.

You continue to pretend not to understand English.

I pretend nothing of the sort, in fact it is because I do understand English that you cannot win this argument.

If it is held tentatively it is not based on faith.

Tentative = uncertain. So you are uncertain of evolution?

If it is the best explanation we have and has so far never been falsified (yet is potenially falsifiable), it is not based on faith.

The best explanation would be a matter of opinion and it is one that I don’t share.

I asked you before if I claim I believe something and will never be convinced I am wrong, regardless of the evidence I find, is that Faith?

That would be blind faith

What is the opposite of such a position?

Omniscience and between the two you have plain old faith.

Now I will ask you to define "truth" in this context.

What is and doesn’t change.

Here is the arrogance of Creationism.

It is the arrogance of a creationist, I don’t claim to speak for them all. (You do realise that I can be both arrogant and right don’t you?)

I guess you must be God. I thought The KJV Bible was your God? Are you commiting Heresy now??

More arrogance and hubris! I bow to your Divine omnipotence!

Idiot.

Well, at least you admit you have Faith. But you cannot both "believe" and "know" something. It is either one or the other. Of course, you twist the meaning of these words around so much that you have probably confused yourself at this point.

Belief and faith are for those who may not share that belief and faith, I know is for myself and those who do share that belief and faith and who also know. The meanings have not been twisted and I am not confused.

FoeHammer.

 

[Inan3]

Here's another reason why creationism is a form of idolatry; they're unable to distinguish doctrine from deity. We all know that people tell stories, and mere fallable men write a lot of books. All of these books credit human authors, and none among them say they were written by a god instead. We know that all these books had human editors too, and we know of many revisions and omissions made by human scribes often for political reasons. Gods don't write books; people do. But -who wrote what we can all read in the rocks? Or mitochondrial DNA? Because mere humans couldn't be responsible for that.

Well, who did then, Aron-Ra?

When I was a Christian, I thought it was YHWH. But even as a Taoist, I still saw evolution as intelligently-guided, albeit not by a "god" per se. I figured a supreme intellect would have known how badly men would corrupt whatever they wrote into their scriptures. So if some supernatural entity ever wanted us to know the real truth, then it would have conceived of things like fossilization and leaving in traceable phylogenies in our genes, things we could verify for certain without need of faith and regardless what we'd rather believe. I no longer believe in anything supernatural. But if I did, evolution would be my strongest indication of that.

So are you saying that evolution wrote "wrote what we can all read in the rocks? Or mitochondrial DNA? Because mere humans couldn't be responsible for that"? And when you said "who" wrote that was just an error of wording? Or not?

 

[FoeHammer]

(1.) When no precedent can be verified for the claim in question.
...its evidently never happened before.

(2) When no potential explanation of such events or the mechanisms behind them can even be provided to imply that they even should happen.
...there's no way it could have happened?

(3) When the critical elements of the claimed event can never be demonstrated in any number of trials by any number of applicants under any circumstances even hypothetically.
...it apparently doesn't happen.

(4) When the claim in question directly opposes findings which are consistently shown to be true, and thus falsify the claim.
...It can't happen because ___.

I asked how one determines that something is impossible not improbable. Do you need me to explain the difference?

FoeHammer.

 

[Inan3]

Wow. The best you can do is to parrot what I wrote?

No, just pointing out your hypocrisy. It was easier to make that point by using the point already made.

There is no amount of information that would change your mind... is there?

Information that is not information but just a lot of rhetoric will certainly not get me to change my mind.

Yeah, from Harun Yahya ... and you pretend he knows better about genetic sequencing then scientists who are actually trained to do it. Even if you believe his rubbish, where in your source do we find support for your assertion that the 98% figure was made-up from thin air?

Well, I hate to break your ego balloon but he seems to have a lot more credible information than you do.