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.
That is exactly what you are doing. In fact you are presenting zero proof for your claims. It does not surprise me that you try to accuse me of what you are guilt of. I see that constantly on this board. By accusing others you are telling on yourself.Keep avoiding the burden of proof, it is amusing.
Ok now this would be different, I'm with you here. If you don't even grasp a concept but you start posting it or you start reciting it to someone because it just 'Sounds Smart' and you think it's from some smart guy, then yes that is lame. But if you grasp it, and we're just in a forum, and it builds on your point, I would call it 'Referencing' not plagiarizing...fire away if it helps your argument.Note to freshman college students - DON'T PLAGIARIZE WHEN DISCUSSING THINGS THAT YOU CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
There was no sudden moment when apes became men. It was evolutionary process over hundreds of thousand of years. You obviously have no understanding or knowledge of the Theory of Evolution.That's because the evidence is missing. Tell us HOW and WHEN mindless Nature put the superior intelligence of God into Apes. You cannot. Neither can you show us genetically HOW Humans changed from prehistoric to Human. Your "evidence" depends on your blind Faith in the False ToE. In the end, you will weep and gnash your teeth.
I would seriously lighten the standards of 'Plagiarism' inside of a forum. Should we seriously be footnoting our posts now? Our posts already get too long too quick. @Uber Genius isn't writing any articles here. I actually at one point started making side comments in my posts if I was getting a point out of this book or that book, but then I kept getting the feeling that nobody else was doing it. If someone has worded an argument perfectly, and you feel like you couldn't say it any better, and your in a forum where replies are coming in fast, I don't see the problem.
A few years ago I almost bought a commentary where the reviews were spectacular, and I couldn't find a book with similar content either, but I snoozed on buying it. I tried to buy the book this year but found out it got pulled because of plagiarism. Now that is a different story, that is fraud by the author yes. However, I strangely wanted the book more personally. I'm more attracted to the coherent splicing together of various viewpoints than I'm attracted to originality IF the splicing together of other people's material results in a better articulated argument!! The great reviews made me feel like that was the case. I paid extra money to get the book from a private seller on Amazon.
Some posters in here are cut & paste maniacs, if what they are cutting & pasting makes sense I don't care who's brainchild it is. Give me the best technical points in this forum please, I don't need originality points.
Ok now this would be different, I'm with you here. If you don't even grasp a concept but you start posting it or you start reciting it to someone because it just 'Sounds Smart' and you think it's from some smart guy, then yes that is lame. But if you grasp it, and we're just in a forum, and it builds on your point, I would call it 'Referencing' not plagiarizing...fire away if it helps your argument.
So then we should consider footnotes to be a mandatory part of posting? Is there a difference between implied plagiarism and blatant plagiarism? Every reference to any source should be documented in posts?The owners of the forum disagree. There is a rule against plagiarism.
So then we should consider footnotes to be a mandatory part of posting?
You made the claim that the Bible is not true yet you have not been able to prove your claim at all. You need to present your evidence to back up your claim.What claim did i make?
Ah, the fish Phylum came about in the Cambrian explosion, as well as the lizard Phylum, the horse Phylum , and the cat Phylum?You could find all major phyla arriving in a period of only 40-50 million years (known as the Cambrian Explosion) utterly destroying the Neo Darwinian gradualism inference.
Did you mean to call attention to the recalcitrant fact of those data, or their knock down capability? Opps.
You made the claim that the Bible is not true yet you have not been able to prove your claim at all. You need to present your evidence to back up your claim.
Count the legs on a grasshopper. The Bible says it has 4. I count the legs on the grasshopper. And somehow my faith gets weak the moment the count reaches 5.You made the claim that the Bible is not true yet you have not been able to prove your claim at all. You need to present your evidence to back up your claim.
Count the legs on a grasshopper. The Bible says it has 4. I count the legs on the grasshopper. And somehow my faith gets weak the moment the count reaches 5.
I do not claim that the translation is without error. Only the original Bible in the original language. So you would have to talk to some KJV ONLY people to see how they defend this translation of the Bible.Count the legs on a grasshopper. The Bible says it has 4.
I have given you overwhelming scientific evidence to verify how true and accurate the Bible is. I can not keep repeating myself over and over again.You keep claiming the bible is 100% true and science backs it up.
I do not find it amusing at all that you keep trying to avoid the truth.Keep avoiding the burden of proof, it is amusing.
Science never said this theory was infinite, you did. In fact, it wasn't even a scientist that came up with this theory that isn't infinite, a mathematician did. Infinite monkey theorem - WikipediaThe infinite monkey theory is not infinite. So science does not say what they mean and they do not mean what they say. Of course, how could we expect anything any different. I do not even know where you would get a infinite number of monkeys and even if you had a infinite number of monkeys where would you keep them? Where would you find a infinite amount of food to feed them.
Show me evidence of Noah and of the flood. As for Jesus and his example, do you hate your brother, your father, your mother, your sister and even yourself? Do you have no thought for the 'morrow, no savings and no cache for the future? Do you follow all the old testament laws like selling your raped daughter for half price to her rapist? Do you stone gays and adulterers to death? Do you kill those who work on the sabbath? After all, not a jot or tittle of the old laws are to be discarded until all in heaven and earth have come to pass, right?Noah was a real person and his flood was a real flood. The Bible is absolute literal truth. Even if people do not know what those words mean. The Bible is a paradigm not a metaphor. People do not realize how great God is and what HE is able to accomplish. When we talk about Jesus we talk about a corner stone. He sets the standard. He lived His life as a example for us to follow.
Well, I understand that you know you can't prove any of that, this is a progress of sorts, but we've been at this beach head for some time now, surely you can take another step?God represents the natural laws that we find in the Universe. This universe would not exist if it were not for the laws we are able to identify. However we are not seeking to show that God exists, we are showing that the Bible is accurate and true.
NASA isn't a Math Professor... If I need surgery, I won't go to a faith healer. In fact, I wouldn't go to a faith healer for any reason.I go by NASA, when they screw up people die. If you need surgery who do you go to?
I understand all that just fine thank you very much - what YOU don't seem to understand is any evidence is better than no evidence whatsoever. Science does indeed go with the best explanation for the evidence they have because this is what gives us such accurate and repeatable results.What YOU do not understand is that Science goes by the best explanation they have. They produce the best answers they can come up with. You have to be able to produce a better solution or a better explanation.
I do not find it amusing at all that you keep trying to avoid the truth.
Go read a book. Your Ignorance isn't a valid argument.
Of course I am - one can judge on your responses and posts. If you know something but choose to respond in such a way that makes it appear you do not, that is not my problem.
Non-sequitur. I asked how you know that what you read from creationists is accurate. It seems obvious that you merely take what they write at face value.
You are exactly the sort of reader professional creationists hope for and rely on.
"If you test a method on a known, and the method reproduces what is known, then we have verification that the method produces accurate results."
Hmmm.... Or maybe this:
"You don't think testing a method on knowns has implications for the usefulness of the methods?"
So, this is what started this string -
The tested methodology:
Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.
======================
Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592
Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.
==================================
Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677
Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies
DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.
The only 'assumptions' are those that even creationists admit are true - mutations happen; some mutations are heritable; patterns of shared inherited mutations are indicative of parent-offspring/ancestor-descendant relationships.
rs had blown it all off claiming 'yes mutations happen... blah blah blah', totally missing the implication.
The implication is that since these methods can reproduce known relationships, then using these methods on unknown relationships and accepting the conclusions is warranted.
Get it now?
I misread things sometimes.
But when corrected, I accept it and move on.
You?
That is quite an assertion.
When you present the science for any claim you make, I will explain it to you.
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?