This may or may not be true in all cases. In this particular example, I assume none of us have any real idea.
in most cases i have encountered it hasnt been proven one way or the other (because it cant be, once the resistance gene is present), but there is more evidence to suggest the resistance gene already exists in the population. Acutally, I have encountered reasonable arguments that this is as good an example as any of why evolution makes sense, but is not direct evidence of it.
undirected molecular collisions? an accident? WHAT the feck is he talking about? The instructions in DNA are not abitrary because the organisms that carry them are subject to the environment. If the environment was different then they would be different. The chemistry of DNA is the way it is because of the laws of physics and the chemical
Well I have stopped replying because of quality of the retorts to the scientific disputes put forth.
Well boo hoo.
Quote:
They are basically summed up as, evolution is true, evolution is true, you're a creationist, you're a creationist and even if you swear you are not you are secretly a creationist because only a religious fanatic would criticize evolution.
Actually it is summed up as "the theory of evolution, over the past 150 years, has been found to be a very good theory for explaining our origins. It is not perfect. There is however ample evidence to support the theory. There are critics, and research continues. A vocal minority denies this, but that can't be helped."
Quote:
I have posted studies, criticism of studies, explained what I would do in the actual classroom situation, lists of scientists, picked apart articles showing assumptions and biases.
And it has been patiently explained to you why this would be a waste of time, unless the entire year was devoted to the study of evolution. Perhaps then you could go into the detail you feel is appropriate - the detail you would get at the universtiy level anyway.
It has also been patiently explained to you the hypocrisy of this method when it is not applied to every science topic.
I could show you articles explaining why the SU(5) group is not appropriate for use in unifying the four fundamental forces.
Should we waste 5 months explaining this to high school students, or should this wait until university, where it would be appreciated, and understood?
I could show you papers that claim the statistics taught in school is crap. Should we waste a year in high school doing this, or wait until uni to explain Bayesian probability theory - where it would be appreciated, and understood?
I could show you papers claiming calssical physics does not explain quantum effects. Should we waste a year at school going through this, or wait until the student has a full grasp of the classical view before showing them the problems, and the soultions?
Quote:
I have not mentioned a competing theory, claimed God, the Bible or anything else and yet some in this thread sit there and make unsubstanciated claims, post paranoid delusions, and do it 25 times a day before I can come home and actually respond.
Hearing voices too, are they?
Quote:
Oh well, at least we learned who is open minded and who truly will bash based off of blind faith. To bad they get to do it while claiming it is scientific.
Indeed. Who claims arguments are scientific?
We have patiently explained to you why your position is not viable, unless a full year was dedicated to the study of evolution, say. You, as an educator, are unable to appreciate the time constraints imposed on teaching.
Quote:
When people see here how dogmatically people will defend evolution, moving wel beyond reason and logic, they wonder why I would suggest the criticisms be mandatory. No one would act in this manner over other scientific theories.
It's not a matter of defending evolution - it stands on the evidence, and stands quite well.
We criticise stupidity, and expect to be criticised if we fall into that trap ourselves.
Quote:
So thanks for proving my point. Since so many here have proven that even those who would consider themselves rational and scientific have shown that they believe evolution is not just a theory, but closely associated with a worldview.
Evolution is just a theory - which nicely explains the evidence of our origins. Namely, that we evolved.
As we have pointed out time and time again, it is not perfect, no theory is. You deny it has critics. You deny the problems are hidden from students. It's up to you to prove that.
Once again, due to time constraints in the class room, only a certain amount of information can be taught. You as an educator should know this.
Quote:
If it weren't a worldview, then you could criticize it just like any other science, but since criticism = must love religion it is obvious that it means much more to them. Since they cannot differenciate between theory and worldview, criticism should be mandatory.
Nick
It is criticised just like any other theory. Only you, and fellowship, have problems understanding this.
Open up some books on evolution and try reading them. They are not unthinking love fests.
Hassan thanks for giving a listen to the link. You are entitled to have your views over what he said. I give you credit for at least taking the time to hear what he had to say.
Nooo! Not the blinding by numbers, with bats' auditory systems, humans' visual cortex, the number of synapses. The lecturer has a vast underestimation of the power of highly parallel networks of customised cells: I don't give a rat's ass how long it would take one of these clunky transistor based computers to do what my head does. (about 20 minutes into the lecture).
There are more jokes: brain stuff..."And it runs on potatoes!".
Animate vs. inanimate
Once something is alive, evolution is not undirected: it moves towards survivability. (26:30). "Chance is destructive to machines": stop comparing the animate and inanimate! The "concept" guiding living things is natural selection.
Spontaneous laughter at 31:00? Wassat all about then?
Ah, must be something funny about the Mt. Rushmore slide. Mount Rushmore is not alive, move along.
Illogical
One instance of intelligence creating life (in the theoretical example mentioned) does not make it necessary for all instances to be due to intelligence. (Similar bad reasoning occurs in equating "implies" with "if and only if".) "from slave labour graduate students" joke deserves a bigger laugh (34:30).
An argument about a the properties of a hypothetical creator with some atheist professors. Let's see.
Creator outside of space/time, ten points (36:00), rather obvious. A creator would have to be infinitely powerful wrt the energy in the universe: not sure about creators being subject to the conservation of energy, but that's OK either way.
Error: several instances of human intelligence failing to create life doesn't mean that greater intelligence is required to create life.
Professor asks: Why does God allow evil? Look out professor, it's a trap!
I'd agree that a creator would have to give the created choice, as automatons aren't very interesting.
"If there is no God then there is no moral law giver": not necessarily. Social evolution can be cited as a source of morals. Practices that enhance a culture's survivability are likely to be more prevalent than those that diminish it. Is there a truly universal moral law to strengthen the argument for a moral law giver? Not all people have the same moral rules, so they cannot be truly universal. (Of course, because I like arguing with myself, God could hold the universal ideal moral law which humans approximate due to their fallibility).
Now that the sermon is moving into the consequences of good and evil for creation and theology, I will leave it. And I had 7K characters left.
I ask all evolutionists to listen to it and consider what Mark is saying.
What I hear is that you, and this guy, can claim all you want about being skeptical... but you don't know what skeptical means. This material is nothing more than the same old misunderstandings and misrepresentations that I've heard many times before, repackaged only slightly differently.
He's preaching to the choir, and feeding off the supportive nature of the crowd to create an air of authority. He's using a hand-picked selection of techy-sounding talk with a naive audience that's ready to eat it all up, an audience without the tools, or the will, to challenge him on anything.
The most tired, old misunderstanding is that he has no grasp of how stochastic processes -- that is, processes with a random element -- operating under bounding conditions can produce self-organizing results.
For one thing, he's completely wrong about chance always being "anti-information". There's even a computational method called the "Monte Carlo" method, for crying out loud. Much of the work in neural networks -- technology being used right now in face recognition systems for recognizing known terrorists in airports, for example -- relies on randomized logic networks reinforced by a selection process.
Instead of trying to figure out how to write the code that recognizes a human face, programmers just let a bunch of random processes go at the problem, cull the processes that fail, and strengthen the processes that succeed. In this way they reach a solution that works, yet still have no idea how the process works. In other words, mere chance can produce results that are better than deliberate design.
As someone else has already pointed out, he's also wrong about synthesizing DNA. There are now machines that you can simply type in a base pair sequence... ATTGTCGACAGGA... and have the machine crank out a custom strand of DNA for you.
I stopped about a fifth of the way through this nonsense. In case you think there's anything more compelling in the remaining four fifths, spell it out yourself.
What I wonder is this: What happens in your mind when someone points out clear factual errors like this? Do you still admire the guy who's spouting the misinformation? Do you make excuses for him in your mind like "Well, okay, he was wrong about that but his point is basically right...", or do you just deny that the errors exist?
It is rather interesting how sheepish so many are and will consume a theory with no questions asked. It is science they say. It is a scientific theory they will say. What they will not do is question evolution.
What part of "it is criticised" don't you understand?
What do you think researchers do all day?
Are you deliberately being dishonest?
Quote:
This is the part that really amazes me. Well all the books and studies say evolution is true they will say. All the professors say it is true. It goes on and on.
Your dishonesty does go on and on.
If you want to understand modern evolutionary theory, read it in some popular books on the subject, we suggest.
I have yet to see a study that falsifies evolution. But then, I am not familiar with all the studies.
You must read a lot if you are.
All professors say what is true? Do try to be specific.
BTW, I didn't know you knew all professors. You must get out a lot.
We have already talked about you taking things out of context. Are you being deliberately dishonest?
Quote:
These people that fall for evolution do so not on any merits that actually support the theory of evolution
Wow, you know all the people who believe we evolved, and you know why they believe this.
Amazing.
BTW, you are wrong, but you arlready know that, I'm sure.
Quote:
but by social pressures that say "If you are one to question evolution you are a nut"
Nope, sorry, try again. I would never call Dawkins a nut, or the late Professor Gould. Very bright, maybe.
Quote:
"and if you accept the theory you are very intelligent like us scientists and professors"
Nope, sorry, try again. I have never seen this type of argument as a basis for believing we evolved. Well, except from the "pen" of a creationist, but they don't count.
I would suggest most believe we evolved because the evidence strongly favours this interpretation.
Feel free to come up with an alternative.
Quote:
so for weak minded low self-esteem folks they want to appear in the "cool" group.
Nope, sorry, try again.
Unlike you, I don't need to belong to any group.
Unlike you, I will not speak for everybody else.
I let the evidence speak for itself. It says we evolved.
Feel free to come up with an alternative.
Quote:
This is exactly the cult of evolution.
Nope, sorry, try again.
Evolution is a theory which tries to explain the observed evidence.
It does so quite well.
Feel free to come up with an alternative.
Quote:
It is a group of humanists that want to say God is dead and materialism is how nothing turned into everything.
Nope, sorry, try again.
You must be really special if you know so much about everybody.
BTW, have you learnt what evolution is trying to explain, or are you still going to bring up "rocks to life" arguments?
Quote:
These materialists do not recognize even the possibility of anything supernatural.
Nope, sorry, try again.
Plenty of spiritual scientists out there.
Knew one at uni. Very bright. Hated it when we used "jesus" as a swear word.
Hey look everybody, an emperical data point to add to all the others that show fellowship is wrong.
I believe we have talked about you being dishonest.
Quote:
No everything is a closed system that just evolves on its own.
Explain what you are talking about by "closed system".
Quote:
Until more students start to actually question things evolution will continue to be a theory that will deceive thousands more.
Fellowship
Nope, sorry, try again.
Plenty of students question evolution. Two names that quickly come to mind are Dawkins and Gould.
I submit this new lecture for those who wish to expand their knowledge of creation vs/ evolution.
The speaker in this lecture has credentials that go beyond many.
Please entertain the data this fine gentleman teaches.
No this is not the prior audio I linked earlier. This is a new lecture. I think the fine gentleman does a great job ot teaching the problems with evolution.
Glad you asked. Did you know I had a professor in college who made fun of Christians twice a week at minimum? He did not believe evolution was reconcilable with creationism. He all but hit us over the head with how evolution is a closed system with NOTHING supernatural about it.
You had a bad professor. Get over it.
Evolution is not reconcilable with young earth creationism.
If you want to believe god created life, which then evolved, go for it.
Quote:
THIS is where the problem lies. If one such as I am a Christian and view life as a supernatural creation by a supernatural God I can not expect a theory with no supporting evidence
So you are really an atheist then? After all there is no evidence for god.
But then, I don't think you actually know what a "theory" is, so perhaps you're not.
Quote:
that materialism in a closed system is how nothing became everything including life.
It is not a meshable two ideas.
Fellowship
And here I thought you were talking about evolution.
Evolution starts with the basic assumption that there is life, and goes from there. You did know that didn't you? I would hate to think you are arguing the wrong theory.
Comments
Originally posted by ena
---that is a good question---the immunity is there already in a few of the "subjects"...
This may or may not be true in all cases. In this particular example, I assume none of us have any real idea.
Talk to you soon.
Fellowship
The fact that scientists can't synthesise DNA doesn't mean shit.
DNA has nothing to do with chance.
It's error-correcting but it doesn't reproduce perfectly. Everyone knows this.
"Back-up" gene.
Originally posted by bunge
This may or may not be true in all cases. In this particular example, I assume none of us have any real idea.
in most cases i have encountered it hasnt been proven one way or the other (because it cant be, once the resistance gene is present), but there is more evidence to suggest the resistance gene already exists in the population. Acutally, I have encountered reasonable arguments that this is as good an example as any of why evolution makes sense, but is not direct evidence of it.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
This is nonsense.
I am assuming you are refering to the recording, no?
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The fact that scientists can't synthesise DNA doesn't mean shit.
Thats new. Since when? Last I checked, we could and do synthesize DNA without enzymes. We also, amazingly enough, synthesize peptides without DNA.
You don't "need a mind to produce information."
Genes are the way they are because
WHAT?
undirected molecular collisions? an accident? WHAT the feck is he talking about? The instructions in DNA are not abitrary because the organisms that carry them are subject to the environment. If the environment was different then they would be different. The chemistry of DNA is the way it is because of the laws of physics and the chemical
This man IS FULL OF IT.
Originally posted by billybobsky
I am assuming you are refering to the recording, no?
Yes. And if we can synthesise DNA and do all the time then I'm pleased to report that the guy's factually incorrect too.
Goodnight.
God bless.
Originally posted by trumptman
Well I have stopped replying because of quality of the retorts to the scientific disputes put forth.
Well boo hoo.
They are basically summed up as, evolution is true, evolution is true, you're a creationist, you're a creationist and even if you swear you are not you are secretly a creationist because only a religious fanatic would criticize evolution.
Actually it is summed up as "the theory of evolution, over the past 150 years, has been found to be a very good theory for explaining our origins. It is not perfect. There is however ample evidence to support the theory. There are critics, and research continues. A vocal minority denies this, but that can't be helped."
Quote:
I have posted studies, criticism of studies, explained what I would do in the actual classroom situation, lists of scientists, picked apart articles showing assumptions and biases.
And it has been patiently explained to you why this would be a waste of time, unless the entire year was devoted to the study of evolution. Perhaps then you could go into the detail you feel is appropriate - the detail you would get at the universtiy level anyway.
It has also been patiently explained to you the hypocrisy of this method when it is not applied to every science topic.
I could show you articles explaining why the SU(5) group is not appropriate for use in unifying the four fundamental forces.
Should we waste 5 months explaining this to high school students, or should this wait until university, where it would be appreciated, and understood?
I could show you papers that claim the statistics taught in school is crap. Should we waste a year in high school doing this, or wait until uni to explain Bayesian probability theory - where it would be appreciated, and understood?
I could show you papers claiming calssical physics does not explain quantum effects. Should we waste a year at school going through this, or wait until the student has a full grasp of the classical view before showing them the problems, and the soultions?
Quote:
I have not mentioned a competing theory, claimed God, the Bible or anything else and yet some in this thread sit there and make unsubstanciated claims, post paranoid delusions, and do it 25 times a day before I can come home and actually respond.
Hearing voices too, are they?
Quote:
Oh well, at least we learned who is open minded and who truly will bash based off of blind faith. To bad they get to do it while claiming it is scientific.
Indeed. Who claims arguments are scientific?
We have patiently explained to you why your position is not viable, unless a full year was dedicated to the study of evolution, say. You, as an educator, are unable to appreciate the time constraints imposed on teaching.
Quote:
When people see here how dogmatically people will defend evolution, moving wel beyond reason and logic, they wonder why I would suggest the criticisms be mandatory. No one would act in this manner over other scientific theories.
It's not a matter of defending evolution - it stands on the evidence, and stands quite well.
We criticise stupidity, and expect to be criticised if we fall into that trap ourselves.
Quote:
So thanks for proving my point. Since so many here have proven that even those who would consider themselves rational and scientific have shown that they believe evolution is not just a theory, but closely associated with a worldview.
Evolution is just a theory - which nicely explains the evidence of our origins. Namely, that we evolved.
As we have pointed out time and time again, it is not perfect, no theory is. You deny it has critics. You deny the problems are hidden from students. It's up to you to prove that.
Once again, due to time constraints in the class room, only a certain amount of information can be taught. You as an educator should know this.
Quote:
If it weren't a worldview, then you could criticize it just like any other science, but since criticism = must love religion it is obvious that it means much more to them. Since they cannot differenciate between theory and worldview, criticism should be mandatory.
Nick
It is criticised just like any other theory. Only you, and fellowship, have problems understanding this.
Open up some books on evolution and try reading them. They are not unthinking love fests.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I'm going to bed.
Goodnight.
God bless.
Hassan thanks for giving a listen to the link. You are entitled to have your views over what he said. I give you credit for at least taking the time to hear what he had to say.
God Bless
Fellowship
Nooo! Not the blinding by numbers, with bats' auditory systems, humans' visual cortex, the number of synapses. The lecturer has a vast underestimation of the power of highly parallel networks of customised cells: I don't give a rat's ass how long it would take one of these clunky transistor based computers to do what my head does. (about 20 minutes into the lecture).
There are more jokes: brain stuff..."And it runs on potatoes!".
Animate vs. inanimate
Once something is alive, evolution is not undirected: it moves towards survivability. (26:30). "Chance is destructive to machines": stop comparing the animate and inanimate! The "concept" guiding living things is natural selection.
Spontaneous laughter at 31:00? Wassat all about then?
Illogical
One instance of intelligence creating life (in the theoretical example mentioned) does not make it necessary for all instances to be due to intelligence. (Similar bad reasoning occurs in equating "implies" with "if and only if".) "from slave labour graduate students" joke deserves a bigger laugh (34:30).
An argument about a the properties of a hypothetical creator with some atheist professors. Let's see.
Creator outside of space/time, ten points (36:00), rather obvious. A creator would have to be infinitely powerful wrt the energy in the universe: not sure about creators being subject to the conservation of energy, but that's OK either way.
Error: several instances of human intelligence failing to create life doesn't mean that greater intelligence is required to create life.
Professor asks: Why does God allow evil? Look out professor, it's a trap!
I'd agree that a creator would have to give the created choice, as automatons aren't very interesting.
"If there is no God then there is no moral law giver": not necessarily. Social evolution can be cited as a source of morals. Practices that enhance a culture's survivability are likely to be more prevalent than those that diminish it. Is there a truly universal moral law to strengthen the argument for a moral law giver? Not all people have the same moral rules, so they cannot be truly universal. (Of course, because I like arguing with myself, God could hold the universal ideal moral law which humans approximate due to their fallibility).
Now that the sermon is moving into the consequences of good and evil for creation and theology, I will leave it. And I had 7K characters left.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I ask all evolutionists to listen to it and consider what Mark is saying.
What I hear is that you, and this guy, can claim all you want about being skeptical... but you don't know what skeptical means. This material is nothing more than the same old misunderstandings and misrepresentations that I've heard many times before, repackaged only slightly differently.
He's preaching to the choir, and feeding off the supportive nature of the crowd to create an air of authority. He's using a hand-picked selection of techy-sounding talk with a naive audience that's ready to eat it all up, an audience without the tools, or the will, to challenge him on anything.
The most tired, old misunderstanding is that he has no grasp of how stochastic processes -- that is, processes with a random element -- operating under bounding conditions can produce self-organizing results.
For one thing, he's completely wrong about chance always being "anti-information". There's even a computational method called the "Monte Carlo" method, for crying out loud. Much of the work in neural networks -- technology being used right now in face recognition systems for recognizing known terrorists in airports, for example -- relies on randomized logic networks reinforced by a selection process.
Instead of trying to figure out how to write the code that recognizes a human face, programmers just let a bunch of random processes go at the problem, cull the processes that fail, and strengthen the processes that succeed. In this way they reach a solution that works, yet still have no idea how the process works. In other words, mere chance can produce results that are better than deliberate design.
As someone else has already pointed out, he's also wrong about synthesizing DNA. There are now machines that you can simply type in a base pair sequence... ATTGTCGACAGGA... and have the machine crank out a custom strand of DNA for you.
I stopped about a fifth of the way through this nonsense. In case you think there's anything more compelling in the remaining four fifths, spell it out yourself.
What I wonder is this: What happens in your mind when someone points out clear factual errors like this? Do you still admire the guy who's spouting the misinformation? Do you make excuses for him in your mind like "Well, okay, he was wrong about that but his point is basically right...", or do you just deny that the errors exist?
Originally posted by ena
Tyrell: What-- What seems to be the problem?
Roy: Death.
A Blade Runner fan, I see!
...like drops in the rain...
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Indeed.
It is rather interesting how sheepish so many are and will consume a theory with no questions asked. It is science they say. It is a scientific theory they will say. What they will not do is question evolution.
What part of "it is criticised" don't you understand?
What do you think researchers do all day?
Are you deliberately being dishonest?
This is the part that really amazes me. Well all the books and studies say evolution is true they will say. All the professors say it is true. It goes on and on.
Your dishonesty does go on and on.
If you want to understand modern evolutionary theory, read it in some popular books on the subject, we suggest.
I have yet to see a study that falsifies evolution. But then, I am not familiar with all the studies.
You must read a lot if you are.
All professors say what is true? Do try to be specific.
BTW, I didn't know you knew all professors. You must get out a lot.
We have already talked about you taking things out of context. Are you being deliberately dishonest?
These people that fall for evolution do so not on any merits that actually support the theory of evolution
Wow, you know all the people who believe we evolved, and you know why they believe this.
Amazing.
BTW, you are wrong, but you arlready know that, I'm sure.
but by social pressures that say "If you are one to question evolution you are a nut"
Nope, sorry, try again. I would never call Dawkins a nut, or the late Professor Gould. Very bright, maybe.
"and if you accept the theory you are very intelligent like us scientists and professors"
Nope, sorry, try again. I have never seen this type of argument as a basis for believing we evolved. Well, except from the "pen" of a creationist, but they don't count.
I would suggest most believe we evolved because the evidence strongly favours this interpretation.
Feel free to come up with an alternative.
so for weak minded low self-esteem folks they want to appear in the "cool" group.
Nope, sorry, try again.
Unlike you, I don't need to belong to any group.
Unlike you, I will not speak for everybody else.
I let the evidence speak for itself. It says we evolved.
Feel free to come up with an alternative.
This is exactly the cult of evolution.
Nope, sorry, try again.
Evolution is a theory which tries to explain the observed evidence.
It does so quite well.
Feel free to come up with an alternative.
It is a group of humanists that want to say God is dead and materialism is how nothing turned into everything.
Nope, sorry, try again.
You must be really special if you know so much about everybody.
BTW, have you learnt what evolution is trying to explain, or are you still going to bring up "rocks to life" arguments?
Quote:
These materialists do not recognize even the possibility of anything supernatural.
Nope, sorry, try again.
Plenty of spiritual scientists out there.
Knew one at uni. Very bright. Hated it when we used "jesus" as a swear word.
Hey look everybody, an emperical data point to add to all the others that show fellowship is wrong.
I believe we have talked about you being dishonest.
Quote:
No everything is a closed system that just evolves on its own.
Explain what you are talking about by "closed system".
Quote:
Until more students start to actually question things evolution will continue to be a theory that will deceive thousands more.
Fellowship
Nope, sorry, try again.
Plenty of students question evolution. Two names that quickly come to mind are Dawkins and Gould.
Feel free to come up with an alternative.
The speaker in this lecture has credentials that go beyond many.
Please entertain the data this fine gentleman teaches.
No this is not the prior audio I linked earlier. This is a new lecture. I think the fine gentleman does a great job ot teaching the problems with evolution.
creation vs/ evolution lecture
Your thoughts
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Glad you asked. Did you know I had a professor in college who made fun of Christians twice a week at minimum? He did not believe evolution was reconcilable with creationism. He all but hit us over the head with how evolution is a closed system with NOTHING supernatural about it.
You had a bad professor. Get over it.
Evolution is not reconcilable with young earth creationism.
If you want to believe god created life, which then evolved, go for it.
THIS is where the problem lies. If one such as I am a Christian and view life as a supernatural creation by a supernatural God I can not expect a theory with no supporting evidence
So you are really an atheist then? After all there is no evidence for god.
But then, I don't think you actually know what a "theory" is, so perhaps you're not.
that materialism in a closed system is how nothing became everything including life.
It is not a meshable two ideas.
Fellowship
And here I thought you were talking about evolution.
Evolution starts with the basic assumption that there is life, and goes from there. You did know that didn't you? I would hate to think you are arguing the wrong theory.