Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
How do you decide if something is factual?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tas8831" data-source="post: 71777762" data-attributes="member: 397968"><p>You cannot possibly think this actually addresses my 'challenge'?</p><p></p><p>It was clear in your original post that you used the fact that for those genes you picked, whose sequence lengths were different, to imply that calling them 'the same gene' was dishonest.</p><p></p><p>My 'challenge' was to look at the genes that YOU chose as apparent examples of evolutionist dishonesty to see whether or not their disparate lengths were due to them having not been equally sequenced.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Great - did you actually compare the sequences for these genes:</p><p></p><p></p><p>Human Gene HDLBP </p><p>Rat Gene Hdlbp </p><p>Yeast, S. cerevisiae Gene SCP160 (YJL080C) </p><p>D. Melongaster, Gene Dp1 (CG5170-RB)</p><p></p><p>or did you call foul:</p><p></p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">"What it ACTUALLY shows is some semblance of similarity, and this not nearly as exact as the rhetoric would like you to be convinced of.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">If you really look at the data (void the narrative attached that explains the data according to the already accepted pre-conceived notion) we suddenly realize that the shoe does not fit the foot....Look at this alleged “same gene” across species...an ALLEGED shared gene...Now as fit as the hypothesis based explanation appears, the actual data shows us they actually are nothing alike...they are different in size AND FUNCTION...yet billed as “commonly shared” in the rhetoric.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Well since what I am telling you is true, how did they convince so many? This process of convincing the masses of the speculative for a definite motive (to prove their theory) requires consistent:</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">a) Interpretation of all data...</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">b) Repetition over and over....</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">c) Appeal to Authority....</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">d) And then finally through c) consensus follows (the argumentum ad populum)..</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p></p><p>based SOLELY on the fact that their published sequences are not identical?</p><p></p><p><em>By the way - that is QUITE an indictment - especially when one considers the overarching amount of projection you are employing! </em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Repetition? Appeal to authority? THAT is creationism's bread and butter!</em></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Anyway - </p><p></p><p>THAT is the crux of the issue, not whether you considered this or that!</p><p></p><p>My gosh, that had to have been my obvious point!</p><p></p><p>This is getting as silly as your round and round on your doctored Blum quote.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tas8831, post: 71777762, member: 397968"] You cannot possibly think this actually addresses my 'challenge'? It was clear in your original post that you used the fact that for those genes you picked, whose sequence lengths were different, to imply that calling them 'the same gene' was dishonest. My 'challenge' was to look at the genes that YOU chose as apparent examples of evolutionist dishonesty to see whether or not their disparate lengths were due to them having not been equally sequenced. Great - did you actually compare the sequences for these genes: Human Gene HDLBP Rat Gene Hdlbp Yeast, S. cerevisiae Gene SCP160 (YJL080C) D. Melongaster, Gene Dp1 (CG5170-RB) or did you call foul: [indent] "What it ACTUALLY shows is some semblance of similarity, and this not nearly as exact as the rhetoric would like you to be convinced of. If you really look at the data (void the narrative attached that explains the data according to the already accepted pre-conceived notion) we suddenly realize that the shoe does not fit the foot....Look at this alleged “same gene” across species...an ALLEGED shared gene...Now as fit as the hypothesis based explanation appears, the actual data shows us they actually are nothing alike...they are different in size AND FUNCTION...yet billed as “commonly shared” in the rhetoric. Well since what I am telling you is true, how did they convince so many? This process of convincing the masses of the speculative for a definite motive (to prove their theory) requires consistent: a) Interpretation of all data... b) Repetition over and over.... c) Appeal to Authority.... d) And then finally through c) consensus follows (the argumentum ad populum).. [/indent] based SOLELY on the fact that their published sequences are not identical? [i]By the way - that is QUITE an indictment - especially when one considers the overarching amount of projection you are employing! Repetition? Appeal to authority? THAT is creationism's bread and butter![/i] Anyway - THAT is the crux of the issue, not whether you considered this or that! My gosh, that had to have been my obvious point! This is getting as silly as your round and round on your doctored Blum quote. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
How do you decide if something is factual?
Top
Bottom