Along similar lines, the Chimpanzee developed immunity to malaria that humans did not.
Yes- track allergies to alcohol and lack of allergies to milk.
Better than necromancy.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!
- Thread starter Ktoyou
- Start date
Are you suggesting that the source is drunk and that the claim being made is the result of some drunken stupor?
If not then what's your point?
Let me guess, you don't have one.
It can be disregarded as scientific. Science DOES NOT work by consensus - period. Science is not an exercise in popular opinion. It makes no difference who makes up the group of people who are offering those opinions.
This is not relevant.
There was a time when one single person on planet Earth believed that energy and matter were two forms of the same thing and every expert thought he was wrong.
Moving the goal posts won't magically make you right on this. Science by consensus is not science, it's politics.
God used DNA to make all living things and there are similarities between the DNA of plants and humans and the DNA of humans and animals. The similarity of DNA does not prove bloodline relatedness between humans and plants or humans and animals.
Things garage doors with automatic openers have in common with automobiles...
- Steel
- Aluminum
- Plastic
- Electric motor(s)
- Springs
- Wheels
- Axles
- Gears
- Drive chain (or belt)
- Buttons
- Locks
- Light
- Paint
- Windows
- Various electronics (several of which are IDENTICAL)
- Instruction manual
- The suffix "Auto" in the names of both things
- Etc.
When common design is found, (especially wildly complex design such as that found in a DNA molecule (or any other biological system for that matter)), isn't it more reasonable to suspect a common designer than it is to assume that the same happy accident happened over and over again and then was perpetuated by common descent down multiple independent lines of evolution?
Clete
Irrelevant. This may be Clete's most tone deaf post yet.
Of course these objects have no genetic materials that they pass on to offspring. It is the similarity in the DNA itself that is compelling because it is the very mechanism that informs development.I wonder if Skeeter thinks that garage doors with automatic openers evolved from cars since they have so many things in common or is it that the car evolved from the garage door since its so much more complex?
Not at all. When we understand the mechanisms of development and the transmission of genetic information, the effect of mutation over time and there is a vast amount of time for the system to play out, there is no need to postulate a designer.
Last edited:
No, that's a genetic fallacy.
The truth of a claim is not dependent on who makes the claim.
The quality of the claimant has nothing to do with whether a claim is true or false.
This absolute claim is self-contradictory.
This is the second absolute claim in a sentence where you deny that absolute claims can be made.
It makes absolutely no difference.
Nope. This is an appeal to popularity.
Something is either true, or it is false. Two contradictory statements cannot be true in the same way at the same time.
These are the laws of logic.
And yet there is a correlation. Why do you want to ignore an obvious correlation? If you give as much attention to a stranger in a bar as you would an expert, that actually explains MAGA folks willingness to believe anything.... that suits them
This is a flaw in your reading comprehension perhaps borne of separating out my comments from the post that provoked it. If you parse out a sentence from the the dialogue or paragraph it resides in you strip it of considerable amount of meaning. This may give you fake opportunities to criticize. This is ultimately counterproductive and a complete waste of time.
In context I am clearly making a qualified statement. The missing but understood clause would be: based merely on consensus.
You examine logic with a cudgel when a scalpel is appropriate.
It's actually not. It's simply another example of how easy it is to show the arguments of a Darwinist to be empty.
Your observation of similarities does not provide any evidence for common descent. All it does is help disguise the fact that you assume the truth of your ideas and use your assumptions as if they were evidence.
We prefer science. Present your idea and share your evidence.
Ruling out impossibilities is how you do science. You can't get to that point without investigating claims. You can't do that if you're making appeals to popularity or making genetic fallacies.
Generally speaking, humans are pretty capable at understanding things when they put their minds to it, even if they don't have a degree in whatever field is relevant.
No. Understanding the evidence comes first.
Which means you should question more of what you claim to be science, no?
Correlation does not equal causation.
Fame is irrelevant to whether a claim is true or false.
Consensus makes no difference when it comes to whether a claim is true or not.
What you said was, absolutely, an absolute statement. You can deny it all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it was, in fact, an absolute statement.
Reminder, you said:
You did not at all qualify those two claims.
Are you now trying to move the goalposts?
That's not what you said above.
Sounds like meaningless nonsense to me.
It's directly relevant as I made perfectly clear with the last line of my post.
Now that's irrelevant!
No one would deny a evolutionary relationship between the 1894 Benz VeloT and a brand new Lambroghini Aventador. Nor would anyone deny an evolutionary relationship between Latin and Spanish. Both being things that do not have genetics but that do have a common designer, namely mankind.
Evolutionist have a spot here where their brain breaks.
Why they can't take the same thought process that brought them this far even one more step in the same direction, I'll never know. It surely must be intentional.
Development of what, Skeeter?
Saying it doesn't make it so, Skeeter.
If you come upon any other complex system in existence you automatically and intuitively know that there was an intelligence that brought it into existence. Grass huts, camp fires, boomerangs, fish nets, wheeled carts, automobiles and garage door openers do not make themselves. They are designed and built by someone with not only a thinking mind but a mind with a specific goal and an intelligence sufficient to meet that goal. No amount of time would ever permit the pieces of even the simplest of machines to fall accidentally into place, even if you gave the system the advantage of adding all the needed parts into the system! And while you readily admit that, you cannot seem to force your mind to use the same exact mental process to come to a similar conclusion about biological machines that are much more complex than anything mankind has any idea how to even design much less actually build!
Clete
Humans are closer, genetically, to neandertals than a chimp is to another chimp.
Nope.
Just because similar lines of code are used in a program from another program doesn't mean that the two programs are related.
This begs the question that there is something to have mutations occur in.
The problem with your theory is that it cannot provide an explanation for the scheme used by DNA, let alone how mutations might affect it.
Again, correlation does not equal causation.
Supra.
Who said anything about attention?
What matters is the claim being made, not who makes it.
If you're biased towards the expert, then when the expert is wrong, and the drunk is right, you'll reject what the drunk says, despite him being right, simply because you favor the expert.
However, if all you examine is the claim being made, the claim will stand or fall based on the evidence, and aside from unintentional errors made on your own part while examining the evidence, you'll always have made the correct deductions.
This is what it means to be unbiased.
The former easily results in confirmation bias, while the latter makes it extremely difficult to encounter it.
For example:
Bob Enyart debated Michael Shermer back in 2003. Shermer, being an editor with Scientific American and the Skeptic Society, rejects what the Bible says, so Bob, being a pastor and talk show host, asked him if he could at least agree with the Bible when it says that despite the people worshipping the sun as a god, the Bible says that the sun is a light.
Shermer then went on to deny that the sun is a light.
Yet clearly, the sun is, in fact, a light.
Shermer's commitment to his worldview and rejection of the Bible, resulted in him denying reality, simply because he didn't want to agree with the Bible that the sun is a light.
He was biased towards the "experts."
Don't be like Michael Shermer, Skeeter.
By the way, you can listen to the full encounter here:
And here is the 73-second clip where Bob asks Shermer about the sun being a light:
The problem is that consensus doesn't matter when it comes to the validity of a claim.
False.
You mistake the broader, more metaphorical definition of evolution as the scientific one. The critical point is that there is genetic transmission of information across generations that explains advancement of a species is a self-contained process with mechanisms that have been identified. The examples you use involve designers or mechanisms that can be readily identified. When you try to apply your assumption to creationism, there is no evidence of the creator and no evidence of a mechanism of action, and no attempt to identify them.
Nope.
Yes- the flaw in the analogy is so obvious, not much time is spent on it.
Here, I was talking about the development of individuals.
This is not science.
That is because the mechanisms have been identified and demonstrated in the lab and the field. The creator notion can be discarded.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
They are all bluff and bluster. What has been proven in the lab is that mutated bacteria are always and without fail, still bacteria. Same with fruit flies, etc. etc. etc.
The idea that mutations can create highly complex integrated structures is simply asinine.
What a laughably ridiculous cop-out.
Like I said, the obvious resistance to proceeding down the same logical path is so blatantly obvious that it's surely intentional. Evolutionists refuse to take even one additional step down the very road that they themselves claim as their own intellectual territory and they do so because the end of that road is intuitive, even to them.
How do you debate someone who knows that they're wrong but will not admit it to themselves?
Clete
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
With mockery and ridicule
But only one provides the creative power for evolving.
I suspect you meant to add more to this so that this sentence would be accurate. As it is this sentence is not true on its own and makes no sense in context.
Every organism that is born or dies in a population changes the allele frequency of that population which does not reproduce by cloning. Changing the allele frequency of a population means nothing if the creative power of random mutations does not provide changes larger than those needed to change one family to another without introducing changes at the same time that can reduce fitness in the future.
This is why Haldane's Dilemma seemed impossible to overcome when the idea was introduced, and is even more impossible to overcome the more we learn about molecular biology. In other words, mathematically Haldane's Dilemma show's that common descent is impossible, and trying to test the problem in reality shows every externality makes it worse.
But harmless noise builds up until it reaches a threshold wherein it becomes catastrophic. And since most undirected mutations do not affect natural selection to the betterment or decline of an individual or population, there is no way to avoid reaching that threshold.
Comparing epigenetics with creation is a category error. But studying each in their own contexts, we can at least rule out epigenetics as a mechanism that solves common descent's problems.
OK. So what. Epigenetics, what we know so far about it (which isn't very much) positively makes the problems worse that common descent needs to solve to be viable.
And physicists understand that you can account for all inputs and outputs of an open system. Entropy is still a dead-end for biological life despite your prayers to the physicists - they will always be able to predict that frying pan will always without exception cool to room temperature when the heat is turned off even though it is an open system.
There is no positive pressure in this context. Every entropy reversal must be within a system wherein entropy will either increase greater elsewhere or at a different speed. If it is ever shown that entropy is decreasing somewhere, the physicist is not looking at the whole system.
Your response did not refute the statement I made. In order to say that populations evolve and not individuals you have to show that a mutation that increases fitness does not start with an individual within that population. In fact, all you did was say I was wrong overall in the first sentence and then in the second sentence affirmed all the details that made me correct!
As to trying to solve Haldane's Dilemma with sex. It doesn't work because it doesn't address the problem in any substantial way. Your problem isn't getting the desired mutation to take hold in a population, the problem is the time it takes even in the most favorable situations.
I have edited post #772 with additional thoughts regarding the "drunk vs expert" false dilemma posited by Skeeter.
Another inappropriate call-out. Many times, like here, the mention of a correlation is not a claim about causation, so your knee-jerk comment ( like when you see the phrase I do not believe and call-out a claim made based on incredulity) is just an unthinking stimulus-response reaction for you. Engage your brain.
A correlation just means two things are associated with one and other. We are not scientists, we are consumers of science. We can streamline our education by paying attention to reputable sources, well-knowing they are not perfect. It is not logical to give equal time to everybody. Also, it might be wise to weight our level of certainty in something by how credible the source is. This is a messy approach but it is the best approach.
We layman cannot know the nuances of every esoteric technique. I think it fair to say, I don't see how this works, but unfair to say because I don't see how this works, I am automatically rejecting it.
I just did.
Both matter -- especially to consumers of science. We have to acknowledge our own limitations. Marshalling ahead with ego driven notions that contrast with the findings of people who spend years studying past research and doing their own research is an exercise in hubris. We also must acknowledge when we defer to an expert in an attempt to fill gaps in our understanding. Ultimately, it would be nice if we could all perform our own experiments to get at the answers, but we cannot.
As non-scientists we are better served by being biased in favor of experts. Humans must function on probabilities because we don't have certainty. We can still retain some skepticism, and realize paradigm shifts can happen.
Sometimes we can examine a claim. Often times we are simple ill- equipped to do so.
Consensus, as in peer review, is an indirect indicator of whether a claim might be true. Of course direct evidence we can see our selves is better. We often do not have direct access or do not have the time and energy to devote to learning how to evaluate things,
Last edited: