Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sadly none of the creationists want to learn the basics. That is rather sad since there is no way to criticize a theory properly if one does not understand evidence. And understanding the scientific method is key too.
But would a baboon be rattled by the thought that it's related to us?I would not be rattled by the idea that you are related to a baboon, not at all SZ.
Ah, I understand now; you are including the planets Mercury, Venus and Mars in this 'constellation'. If you get up before sunrise on September 23rd and if the sky is clear you will be able to see Venus and you should be able to see Mercury, at least with binoculars. Mars will probably be too faint to see, and of the stars of Leo only Regulus may be far enough from the sun and bright enough to be visible. Still, I very much doubt whether Revelation 12:1-2 was a prophecy of this interesting planetary conjunction.How about this woman?
If you lived in any Muslim country where terrorists are chopping of the heads of Christians and they are fleeing for their lives (millions) you might think you were in a Great Tribulation.
If you then find a monkey skull from say a hundred million years ago, and place it next to a modern human skull. Then I will have issues with that underlying belief system, give me the DNA! I need a method of validating the claim other than the dogma of the evolutionary belief system.
That, as well as the fact that learning science isn't all that easy.
Hello Obliquinaut.Ummm, I don't mean to be overly pedantic but I simply must point out that as a scientist myself, I have used extensively the area of inferrential statistics to do my job.
I guess my biggest question to you, Klutedavid, how do YOU process your observational data? I mean you do use statistics, right?
Perry Marshall is a business consultant.
He is not a scientist.
He has no training in the sciences.
I did not need to read it. This is supposed to be a science based part of the thread. When you rely on bad sources for your post there is no point in reading it.
Please, I have been dating this issue for a while and can cut through nonsense in an amazing amount of time.
You don't go to a mechanic and ask him about your heart disease.
Then perhaps a little education would be a good thing and trying to avoid shills and hacks would not be a bad idea either.
They love to keep that strawman battle going with Darwin, even though the science has advanced quite a bit since his time.
Not a single person. Doesn't it speak volumes?By the way, did anyone else pay any attention to that post at all?
Education is creationism's greatest nemesis.
Perry and Meyer were at the Royal Society, and they keep up with the research. They were talking about a change that has taken place in the past 5 years. So along comes me, Dirk1540, I come right out and say "Hey I'm no expert. I'm green. Here's a video about this 'Change' that was the topic of Royal Society, I make a thread on it...and basically say Thought??" So it never got addressed, I finally post the gist of it, things like this...
Perry,
"Sonia Sultan told about plants adapting literally in real time and passing immediate changes to their progeny in one generation. "
Ok, something to chew on. The whole 'Immediate' vs 'A Million Years' thing! Sonia Sultan I'm pretty much imagining is pretty qualified to be a speaker at this event.
Your reply...
Perry,
"If you understand that evolution is a constant 24/7, 365 feedback between the environment and the organism, and the changes in some cases are past down immediately...then you have this completely different view of evolution."
Hmm, ok, the guy is obviously pointing out that RAPID evolution factors need to enter the topic with the million year evolution platitude, because it's good to compare the 2 theories that seem to conflict. Keep in mind I'm green. To the untrained eye RAPID and A Million Years kind of differ lol. Instead of a explanation on how they're the same you reply,
Perry,
"Well i was talking to Eva Jablonka, she's a very respected researcher from Israel...She said 'Look, it's one thing if one person like me is saying epigenetics is a big deal, but it's another thing if the nutrition people are talking about it, and the fitness people are talking about it, and the cancer people are talking about it, and on & on.' "
Ok I can dig it, basically driving a point home about different disciplines embracing epigenetics. Once again Eva Jablonka probably being a prominent speaker at this big event...
Perry,
"Epigenetics has become a household word in the fitness world because the genome is very dynamic and your genes don't have to change. Epigenetics is like software menus that get grayed out, and switch certain things on & off and then something changes, and then that grayed out thing gets switched back on...this is what happens. So it's not just one thing. We're now sequencing genomes all over the place, we're seeing more & more clearly what goes on. "
You,
Ok...but is he right or wrong?? Are you beginning to see a pattern of your love affair of attacking the person and not attacking an argument? Question, if it is true that we are now sequencing genomes all over the place, does it matter if the cashier at K-mart told me? It's either true or it's false lol. You dismiss Perry by default. I don't care if LeBron James made the video, HE WAS AT THE EVENT, the question is were the statements true or false?
Perry,
"Denis Noble, the organizer of the conference, he's a physiologist, he's super famous in the medical field for making the pacemaker possible. His heart research...when they were figuring out how the cardiac rhythm works, he figured out from knocking out genes and seeing how it effected the behavior of the heart, he figured out empirically that there's no way that the neo-Darwinist version of how genes work is true."
Interesting. Now, should I go ahead and question the fact that neo-Darwinism does teach RANDOM mutation, yet here we're talking about specific genes that have to be knocked out for a desired effect? Or should my question be 'Did Denis Noble really do this'?? According to you neither should not be my question. According to you my question should be 'Who is Perry Marshall and what gives him the right to ask this question?' According to you I shouldn't have even read the statement (as you yourself haven't because Perry wrote it).
But Perry and Meyer were at, and reporting on a mainstream prominent scientific event, and reporting on the speakers there. Wouldn't bad sources be reporting on a national creationist convention?
You can cut throw nonsense that you didn't even read?
Well, maybe the fact that the mechanic doesn't have your medical records plays into that, so let's find a more accurate example. Hey here's one, "You don't ask your mechanic about evolution!" (One of your favorite angles!) Oh no, wait...turns out that your mechanic knows a ton about evolution. According to you that's impossible lol. YET, every person in this thread who agrees with you, who are basically a handful of self read 'Internet heroes' (no offense so am I), in your book they are dead on BECAUSE OF THEIR ARGUMENTS! However, Perry and Meyer are dismissed and should not even be listened to BECAUSE OF WHO THEY ARE lol, do you even see the irony?? And as if you honestly expect me to believe that Meyer and Perry don't keep up with their opponent's research, come on!
Nah I think I'll just weigh each argument on their own merits instead...instead of having my 'Shill' list, and my 'Legit' list. I find that Hugh Ross says some of the most ridiculous statements. But the man is right sometimes. And if I read a neo-Darwinian advocate and something he says makes sense I'll give him a nod of approval...in other words go against your advice.
Now we reach the reason I asked you 'But why Isn't Perry your guy?' It's not about Perry it's about The Third Movement. The Third Movement IS the advancement for evolution, the realization that there are problems with random mutation theory, and that the theory needs to take a step forward because new information that challenges it has also taken a step forward. I thought that that was your mantra??
Not a single person. Doesn't it speak volumes?
I'm wondering if neo-Darwinists are going to educate themselves with The Third Way? I'm not even being cocky, I'm looking forward to how it plays out. I mean they said this Royal Society event was like the Protestant Reformation of evolutionary theory. This whole turn genes off/turn genes on thing sounds fascinating. I'm not even arguing Darwinism vs Creationism I'm just looking at Darwinism vs Third Way right now.
I have no idea who Perry Marshall is or why I should care what he says.Hmm, to the untrained eye (me) Perry's summary about the Royal Society seems to imply the polar opposite of your second point. To the untrained eye I can't help but think to myself...wait a minute isn't Perry Marshall in your camp??
The Third Wave is a grab-bag of ideas that violate the strict neo-Darwinism of the Modern Synthesis. Some of them are well-established and have long since been incorporated into evolutionary theory, e.g. horizontal gene transfer, the Neutral Theory, endosymbiosis. These are important but not novel; the claim that such ideas are going to overthrow neo-Darwinism is just grandstanding.The same argument that I always here from Darwinians, that they constantly improve their theory and adapt it to new information (Third Way Movement).
Hello Obliquinaut.
A long time ago I did use statistics, yes.
Well, that explains who he is. The "why should I care what he says" question is still to be resolved.Perry Marshall has a degree in electrical engineering and has a career as a marketing consultant specializing in online marketing strategies.
Sorry, but you totally misunderstood the article. The proteins are different and have different sources.
even an eyespot need at least several parts to its minimal function. so even the first step in eye evolution cant evolve stepwise. and e ven the eye itself is evidence for design. if we will find a self replicaiting camera that made from oroganic components (eye actually) we will conclude design.It's true, the theory is simply being exposed. Most people don't bother with the intricate complexities of the TOE. Most of us won't challenge it, it takes a few years to study and thought that none of us have. We just want to live our lives, work, get married, have kids, buy a house and that's enough on our plate. But if you spend some time in, you'll see the flaws, you'll see that it's a house of cards. It's a naturalistic view of the origins of life without God and with those who include God in this process, they don't really take the Bible literally).
Natural Selection = The TOE implies that nature has a mind, intelligence to select beneficial mutations over time, sort them out and choosing one. How does nature change the program, the genetic code and order it to manufacture something completely different? It's absurd! Nature does not have intelligence, it does not sort out and choose beneficial mutations, design the DNA molecule and manufacturing process of the cells, organs, etc.
Beneficial Mutations = the sifting through thousands of harmless if not deadly mutations to come upon one that is beneficial, then passing it on. The organism would die of the thousands of harmless and deadly mutations before it got a chance to choose a good one (if it could). Let's be honest, how do we view mutations? Distortions and defects in the genetic code. They are defects and some geneticists would say that 99.99% of them are harmless or at best neutral. You see, chance would not have a chance.
Cells are irreducibly complex. Darwin thought they were a jelly-like substance. He didn't know that cells weren't simple. A one-celled paramecium has a flagellum that is more complex than the space shuttle.
The eye could not have evolved in a piece by piece fashion because ALL THE PIECES ARE REQUIRED TO BE FUNCTIONAL AND PRESENT AT THE SAME TIME. Otherwise vision doesn't work. So none of the pieces would be beneficial to pass on because vision could not be possible.
Evolutionists would point to simple eyes like that of a horseshoe crab, but even their eyes have parts and each part is required for vision.
All cells, organs and systems have been complex all along. Life comes from life and we were created a finished being. A rose was always a rose and a peacock was always a peacock, nothing else. Each kind has its place in the eco-system although the distortion of sin entered in and so the balance is not perfect as it once was.
We can see the complexity of DNA which is mind boggling to decipher. Does nature organize these complex cells, fibers, organs and system simultaneously in the human womb? Do the cells decipher the codes and proceed to build a human all by itself? No, this process is ordered. God knits together the baby in the womb. And the mutations that have accumulated over generations sometimes cause distortions and defects that are seen at birth. We call them birth defects. A baby is a gift, created by God, not nature. God uses nature but intelligence is required, design, order, these things don't produce themselves.
Finally, the Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God, they are corrupt, their deeds are vile, their is no one who does good." Psalms 14:1
there is no such a tree anymore:I do have another question. Ok whether you're a theist or atheist I believe that we all agree that the Earth is much older than the origin of life. So whatever your beliefs you probably agree that 'Something' caused first life. This is what Darwin would point to as the tree trunk to the tree of life.
My question is, if this 'Something' undeniably happened, why so dead set against that something happening multiple times? In other words why so locked into a tree of life and so dead set against a forest of life? I'm even put religion to the side, even if you cling to man and ape being on the same tree, you still can't argue that the cockroach belongs to a separate tree?? Maybe this was asked already, this thread got insanely long lol.
here is an interesting way to check if evolution fo whale is possible: lest say that we have a car. can we change it (analogy to mutations and changes) stepwise into a submarine when every step is functional? if not then nature cant do that too.Your claiming your evolution from a baboon, I am not making that claim you are.
That is not a swipe at you, that is your evolutionary history not mine.
You need to define your usage of 'closest relative', what a broad phrase that is.
Do you firmly support the evolution of the whale or not?
If you cannot strongly demonstrate the evolution of the whale, then what I am I to think about evolutionary theory?
You cannot say that the, 'mountains of evidence', cannot even demonstrate the actual evolution of any one species. That is simply saying that evolutionary theory is a scientific generalization, on the larger scale it appears valid but no in any specific way.
What could be more basic than you explaining the evolution of the whale.
Negative SZ, your claiming your descent from tree swinging apes.
No claim by me SZ, that is evolutionary science.
Incorrect.
Oh yes they are.
The Jews wrote the scripture, I already know what some of them think about Jesus.
I have stated already that I do not regard the early chapters of Genesis as valid.
I am not a young earth creationist nor do I believe in an old earth. I have issues with both of these extremist camps.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?