|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

Default Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’

January 6th, 2014, 01:15
Originally Posted by Damian View Post
http://www.detectingdesign.com/steppingstones.html
So what's your point? From a brief glance, this paper is just a variation of Michael Behe's argument for "irreducible complexity" i.e. that some structures are too complex to have evolved, so someone must have waved a magic wand. I'm sure you can find many such eccentric documents all over the net. But, they aren't a part of peer reviewed science.

Apart from the fact that "irreducible complexity" is an argument from ignorance, there is a simple answer, which is that structures that have evolved for some other reason later take on functionality for which they didn't evolve (a bit like scaffolding). And that is exactly what you would expect from how evolution works.

Seems like you are now moving from creationism to "intelligent design". And that's really just a way that creationists have of trying to get religion taught in US schools, since the constitution forbids the teaching of specific religions in science classes. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

… Oh and fortunately so far the wedge strategy hasn't been successful - check out the ruling in the "Dover Trial".
Last edited by Roq; January 6th, 2014 at 01:30.
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#501

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 974

Default 

January 6th, 2014, 01:59
The reason you should not take information from creationist websites is because they either do not understand it or mislead people with even less knowledge.

Unfortunately, my knowledge of genetics and biology isn't advanced enough to understand those papers and so I cannot explain the error in interpretation. I can however surmise that since the guy writing the papers is doing so for evidence of evolution that your site is probably wrong.

I will also add that I am quite certain you do not understand these papers either.

The guy does add a lot of research to that original paper from 1982.
(not expecting you to read all of this)
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten…/1055.full.pdf
http://www.genetics.org/content/120/4/887.full.pdf
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten…/1389.full.pdf


For over 30 years, microorganisms have been used as model systems to study the evolution of new func- tions (Mortlock 1984).
This guy's life work is to add evidence FOR evolution. I say he understands his work better than others.

Add to this that the other website you linked actually explains more about evolution : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7565/#A1729
This is the same book you attributed to evidence contrary to evolution…

EDIT : See Roq's explanation as it's better than what I wrote…
http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showp…&postcount=501
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#502

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,037
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

January 6th, 2014, 02:12
Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
Well, it is still not evidence for evolution.
I do not know of any good mutations.
They are always fatal in the long run since it never have been OBSERVED
anything else than loss of information
I've already explained that isn't true and given you examples !

I'm tired of you.

If you want a better explanation rather than examples (such as extra fingers), here :

It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).
new information is regularly generated in evolution, whenever a novel mutation or gene duplication arises. Dramatic examples of entirely new, unique traits arising through mutation have been observed in recent years, such as the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria, which developed new enzymes to efficiently digest a material that never existed before the modern era.[119][120] In fact, when an organism is considered together with the environment it evolved in, there is no need to account for the creation of information. The information in the genome forms a record of how it was possible to survive in a particular environment. It is not created, but rather gathered from the environment through research—by trial and error, as mutating organisms either reproduce or fail.[121]
A related argument against evolution is that most mutations are harmful.[122] However, the vast majority of mutations are neutral, and the minority of mutations which are beneficial or harmful are often situational; a mutation that is harmful in one environment may be helpful in another.[123]
TRIMming the genome

Some monkeys have a mutation in a protein called TRIM5 that results in a piece of another, defunct protein being tacked onto TRIM5. The result is a hybrid protein called TRIM5-CypA, which can protect cells from infection with retroviruses such as HIV. Here, a single mutation has resulted in a new protein with a new and potentially vital function. New protein, new function, new information.

Although such an event might seem highly unlikely, it turns out that the TRIM5-CypA protein has evolved independently in two separate groups of monkeys. In general, though, the evolution of a new gene usually involves far more than one mutation. The most common way for a new gene to evolve is for an existing gene to be duplicated. Once there are two or more copies, each can evolve in separate directions.

The duplication of genes or even entire genomes is turning out to be ubiquitous. Without a duplication of the entire genome in the ancestor of modern-day brewer's yeast, for instance, there would be no wine or beer. It is becoming clear that every one of us has extra copies of some genes, a phenomenon called copy number variation.

The evolution of more complex body plans appears to have been at least partly a result of repeated duplications of the Hox genes that play a fundamental role in embryonic development. Biologists are slowly working out how successive mutations turned a pair of protoHox genes in the simple ancestors of jellyfish and anemones into the 39 Hox genes of more complex mammals.
Can mutation really lead to the evolution of new species?

Yes. Several species of abalone shellfish have evolved due to mutations in the protein "key" on the surface of sperm that binds to a "lock" on the surface of eggs. This might appear impossible, but it turns out that some eggs are prepared to be penetrated by deviant sperm. The same thing can happen in fruit flies, and likely in many other groups too. In yeasts, the mutations that led to some new species forming have not only been identified, they have even been reversed.

The list of examples could go on and on, but consider this. Most mutations can be reversed by subsequent mutations - a DNA base can be turned from an A to a G and then back to an A again, for instance. In fact, reverse mutation or "reversion" is common. For any mutation that results in a loss of information, logically, the reverse mutation must result in its gain. So the claim that mutations destroy information but cannot create it not only defies the evidence, it also defies logic.
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#503

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,037
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

January 6th, 2014, 02:19
New gene creation and explanation of information:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJVjTh98aHU
(not a joke and not offensive.)
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#504

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,037
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

January 6th, 2014, 02:22
Originally Posted by Roq View Post
So what's your point? From a brief glance, this paper is just a variation of Michael Behe's argument for "irreducible complexity" i.e. that some structures are too complex to have evolved, so someone must have waved a magic wand. I'm sure you can find many such eccentric documents all over the net. But, they aren't a part of peer reviewed science.

Apart from the fact that "irreducible complexity" is an argument from ignorance, there is a simple answer, which is that structures that have evolved for some other reason later take on functionality for which they didn't evolve (a bit like scaffolding). And that is exactly what you would expect from how evolution works.

Seems like you are now moving from creationism to "intelligent design". And that's really just a way that creationists have of trying to get religion taught in US schools, since the constitution forbids the teaching of specific religions in science classes. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

… Oh and fortunately so far the wedge strategy hasn't been successful - check out the ruling in the "Dover Trial".
I am well aware of that. This guy does a good job of defending the flaggelum. I believe Behe was misinterpreted in the Dover trial.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#505

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 387

Default 

January 6th, 2014, 03:25
Originally Posted by Damian View Post
I am well aware of that. This guy does a good job of defending the flaggelum. I believe Behe was misinterpreted in the Dover trial.
Behe wasn't defending a young earth and he, at least, did believe in the principles of evolution by natural selection (and the necessary timescales). He just (!?) wanted to insert god in some special cases, such as the bacterial flagellum. Since Behe's book many scientists have responded to this particular example. There's quite good summary here of the general reaction that isn't too technical: http://www.newscientist.com/article/…l#.UsoP77S9aZU

I was also amused when googling this to find the odious Ken Ham sounding off about Behe. Apparently Behe's views aren't sufficiently creationist and he's destined for hell, so when I meet him there I can get more information.
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#506

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 974

Default 

January 6th, 2014, 06:32
Originally Posted by Roq View Post
Behe wasn't defending a young earth and he, at least, did believe in the principles of evolution by natural selection (and the necessary timescales). He just (!?) wanted to insert god in some special cases, such as the bacterial flagellum. Since Behe's book many scientists have responded to this particular example. There's quite good summary here of the general reaction that isn't too technical: http://www.newscientist.com/article/…l#.UsoP77S9aZU

I was also amused when googling this to find the odious Ken Ham sounding off about Behe. Apparently Behe's views aren't sufficiently creationist and he's destined for hell, so when I meet him there I can get more information.
Ah, they misunderstand irreducible complexity. It is explained in greater detail by Behe's good friend Willam Dembske.
http://www.designinference.com/docum…_Revisited.pdf
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#507

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 387

Default 

January 6th, 2014, 11:03
Originally Posted by Damian View Post
Ah, they misunderstand irreducible complexity. It is explained in greater detail by Behe's good friend Willam Dembske.
http://www.designinference.com/docum…_Revisited.pdf
Moreover, even cases where removing a certain component in an organic system will cause the system to fail do not demonstrate that the system couldn't have been formed in a step-by-step, evolutionary process. By analogy, stone arches are irreducibly complex—if you remove any stone the arch will collapse—yet we build them easily enough, one stone at a time, by building over centering that is removed afterward. Similarly, naturally occurring arches of stone are formed by weathering away bits of stone from a large concretion that has formed previously. Evolution can act to simplify as well as to complicate. This raises the possibility that seemingly irreducibly complex biological features may have been achieved with a period of increasing complexity, followed by a period of simplification.
Damian, it's quite simple. We might not be able to explain every single example that these guys give you and this could be due to our ignorance or because we weren't there when it happened, but it doesn't mean God did it. All it means is, we don't know.

And since the world has quadrillions of bits of information everywhere, you'll be able to find an example we cannot explain yet or just haven't explained yet.

Simplified, no explanation does not equal God.
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#508

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,037
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

January 6th, 2014, 19:13
Or ignorance does not equal God, although sometimes it seems so.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#509

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,865

Default 

January 6th, 2014, 22:26
I do understand your point of view both of you.
I understand that you belive in this.
I hope that you two can see that even though scientists on the TET side wants to
count a number of things as evidence, just as the creationist scientists wants to
count them as evidence for their agenda, there is not any real evidence observed.
However, this whole idea of TET has been invented and not observed, if you don't
count micro evolution.
TET is not science. It could be historic science but it does not qualify cause it lacks witness.

To belive in historic documents as them that is included in the bible.
What would you call that?
Written historic documents from 4000 to 1800years old depending on witch book you chose to read in the bible.

You have to understand that when they were written the bible did not exist.
Later when these scripts had been choosen to represent the word of God, the
individual books became a part of the bible.

So you do have to treat each document as a historic document
not as a part of a religiosbook.

Since I have myself been filled with the different excuses, turnarounds and inventions of all the things that TET needs, not to be totaly disgraced,
It took the bigger part of my life to see through it.

for belief in TET people have invented meassurments of time that fits the geologic time scale. Still, it does not work but who cares…
The redshift was hijacked to be a doppfler effect. The invention of dark materia was needed. The invention of the Ort cloud. Now we have to think about paralel universes.
It gets so silly because TET simply can't do it.
Have you noticed that the age of the earth is expanding rapidly cause TET always need more billions of years to seem trustworthy.
It's totaly out of hand. They make up a new caveman/apeman every now and then. It gets refuted but lives on for ages in text-books and museums.
All these "trees of life" has been refuted. They live on several of them posted in this thread, called evidence by evolutionists.
The second law of TD does aply to the universe no matter how much evolutionists cry out. It has not been refuted. The evo-side always do refute something else and say it's the same. It is not.

Because of the mocking of plain and simple truths in favour of a young earth
it's not easy to reach you.
It does not matter if sombody says it's silly to talk about all the evidence for a young earth, the evidence is still there.
TopCat is offline

TopCat

Watcher

#510

Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 51

Default 

January 6th, 2014, 22:43
Actually there is plenty of evidence supporting evolution. Much better evidence than that supporting a young Earth, intelligent design, and the flood story.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#511

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,865

Default 

January 6th, 2014, 23:43
Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
I do understand your point of view both of you.
I understand that you belive in this.
I hope that you two can see that even though scientists on the TET side wants to
count a number of things as evidence, just as the creationist scientists wants to
count them as evidence for their agenda, there is not any real evidence observed.
However, this whole idea of TET has been invented and not observed, if you don't
count micro evolution.
TET is not science. It could be historic science but it does not qualify cause it lacks witness.
The Evolution Theory is not a science. You are right. It's a scientific theory. Just like the Gravitational Theory is. You choosing to ignore evidence and us showing you a lot of evidence does not mean it's wrong.

We've refuted every single one of your arguments, including the ability for evolution to create information (see nylonase). Yet, you will go on with that line of argumentation next time you talk to someone.

This is one of the major reasons for people like Dawkins voices get heard so loudly.

It's like talking to a child with their fingers in their ears screaming : Lalalalala!

To belive in historic documents as them that is included in the bible.
What would you call that?
Written historic documents from 4000 to 1800years old depending on witch book you chose to read in the bible.

You have to understand that when they were written the bible did not exist.
Later when these scripts had been choosen to represent the word of God, the
individual books became a part of the bible.

So you do have to treat each document as a historic document
not as a part of a religiosbook.
Nothing to do with what we've discussed and since you don't listen to arguments anyway, there is little point in me refuting that line of thinking.

Since I have myself been filled with the different excuses, turnarounds and inventions of all the things that TET needs, not to be totaly disgraced,
It took the bigger part of my life to see through it.

for belief in TET people have invented meassurments of time that fits the geologic time scale. Still, it does not work but who cares…
The redshift was hijacked to be a doppfler effect. The invention of dark materia was needed. The invention of the Ort cloud. Now we have to think about paralel universes.
It gets so silly because TET simply can't do it.
Have you noticed that the age of the earth is expanding rapidly cause TET always need more billions of years to seem trustworthy.
Wow! You really do not understand sciences. These conclusions were arrived at with completely different methods and mindsets and with nothing to do with evolution.

Geologists figured out timescales on its own, independently of evolution.
Physicists predicted dark matter as part of a completely different theory, which again helps measure time independently of evolution.

The whole point is that all of these discoveries independently verify timescales and they all come down to similar conclusions (with none of them coming down to 6000 years old).

Because they all concur, they are then used together as evidence against arguments like yours!

It's totaly out of hand. They make up a new caveman/apeman every now and then. It gets refuted but lives on for ages in text-books and museums.
All these "trees of life" has been refuted. They live on several of them posted in this thread, called evidence by evolutionists.
cavemen/apemen ? I assume you mean the finds that turn out to be hoaxes. Yes, some people are dumb, greedy and want attention. The point is that science uncovered those as frauds. Religion doesn't do that and keeps ancient myths in its holy books with no regard for authenticity.

The trees of life as you call them are mere representations of the evidence! They are not evidence in and of themselves, another blatant misunderstanding on your part with relation to science.

The second law of TD does aply to the universe no matter how much evolutionists cry out. It has not been refuted. The evo-side always do refute something else and say it's the same. It is not.
Been addressed.

Because of the mocking of plain and simple truths in favour of a young earth
it's not easy to reach you.
It does not matter if sombody says it's silly to talk about all the evidence for a young earth, the evidence is still there.
No, it isn't as we have refuted in this very thread !

I'm done with you, you can keep posting your nonsense.

As a summary:
- We've refuted your line of argument considering no gain of information possible. i.e. Degeneration as you defined is BS.
- We've refuted your arguments of use with the law of thermodynamics.
- We've shown the basics of the mechanics of plate tectonics
- You have shown to use conspiracy theorist strategies based on nonsense (see Dawkins professorship)
- Refuted your line of questioning regarding missing links
- You seem to think the theory of evolution is still based entirely on Darwin's books, but it actually has "evolved" a lot since then.
- You misunderstand or misrepresent scientific terms by rewording them : e.g. kind instead of species, with no definition for the word
- We've taught you that most fish cannot go from freshwater to saltwater without dying.
- We've shown the ark to not be able to carry or provide for all the animals on it whether they be millions or thousands.
- You used other religion's mythologies to prove your own.
- You philosophise about all of this without using facts.

Well, that was an interesting conversation, but I'm done talking with you. Have a good evening.
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#512

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,037
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

January 6th, 2014, 23:56
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
Actually there is plenty of evidence supporting evolution. Much better evidence than that supporting a young Earth, intelligent design, and the flood story.
There is no real evidence for the complete story of evolution. You have fossils that you believe to be our common ancestor however we do not know if they really are or just an unlinked different species. We have have to draw the lines to believe in evolution at best the fossils represent circumstantial evidence.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#513

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 387

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 00:04
Damian, you are coming across extremely ignorant because you don't even understand fundamentals like what the word "evidence" means.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#514

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,865

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 03:05
Originally Posted by Pladio View Post
The Evolution Theory is not a science. You are right. It's a scientific theory. Just like the Gravitational Theory is. You choosing to ignore evidence and us showing you a lot of evidence does not mean it's wrong.

We've refuted every single one of your arguments, including the ability for evolution to create information (see nylonase). Yet, you will go on with that line of argumentation next time you talk to someone.

This is one of the major reasons for people like Dawkins voices get heard so loudly.

It's like talking to a child with their fingers in their ears screaming : Lalalalala!



Nothing to do with what we've discussed and since you don't listen to arguments anyway, there is little point in me refuting that line of thinking.



Wow! You really do not understand sciences. These conclusions were arrived at with completely different methods and mindsets and with nothing to do with evolution.

Geologists figured out timescales on its own, independently of evolution.
Physicists predicted dark matter as part of a completely different theory, which again helps measure time independently of evolution.

The whole point is that all of these discoveries independently verify timescales and they all come down to similar conclusions (with none of them coming down to 6000 years old).

Because they all concur, they are then used together as evidence against arguments like yours!



cavemen/apemen ? I assume you mean the finds that turn out to be hoaxes. Yes, some people are dumb, greedy and want attention. The point is that science uncovered those as frauds. Religion doesn't do that and keeps ancient myths in its holy books with no regard for authenticity.

The trees of life as you call them are mere representations of the evidence! They are not evidence in and of themselves, another blatant misunderstanding on your part with relation to science.



Been addressed.



No, it isn't as we have refuted in this very thread !

I'm done with you, you can keep posting your nonsense.

As a summary:
- We've refuted your line of argument considering no gain of information possible. i.e. Degeneration as you defined is BS.
- We've refuted your arguments of use with the law of thermodynamics.
- We've shown the basics of the mechanics of plate tectonics
- You have shown to use conspiracy theorist strategies based on nonsense (see Dawkins professorship)
- Refuted your line of questioning regarding missing links
- You seem to think the theory of evolution is still based entirely on Darwin's books, but it actually has "evolved" a lot since then.
- You misunderstand or misrepresent scientific terms by rewording them : e.g. kind instead of species, with no definition for the word
- We've taught you that most fish cannot go from freshwater to saltwater without dying.
- We've shown the ark to not be able to carry or provide for all the animals on it whether they be millions or thousands.
- You used other religion's mythologies to prove your own.
- You philosophise about all of this without using facts.

Well, that was an interesting conversation, but I'm done talking with you. Have a good evening.
Sorry Pladio, you really belive that you have answered me??!
You have not answered TD, you have claimed to twice but
You said our solarsystem, I said the universe. You claim to be educated
and could not tell the different meaning … Twice.

The "evidence" behind the "trees of life" have been refuted everywhere except on Evo-fan cites.
There is still not any findings of fossils thats half horse,dog,cow, pig, ape or human.
If sombody says so, check it up cause they are lying.

You have not responded in a serious way to oil, cole, petrified trees running through millions of years of geological layers, earths magneticfield.
Do you claim that Dawkins is not sponsored outside the university.
The things you claim like the background radiation in the universe is a hoax and a wellknown hoax. Laught at by many not christians or creationists.

You have not answered "the simple cell" by golly, you don't seem to have answered anything?!
What about oil, why is it still underground when we know that the pressure is to big for the surface not to crack open in less than tenthousand years and you claim millions of years.
Whatabout Dinasour tissue… 65millionyearsold? and still soft tissue???

What about these giant great white sharks.I have in my hand a tooth from a great white estimated to have been 90 feet long. It's suposed to be many millions of years old… Sorry, I have it in my hand, it's totaly fresh, sharp as a razor, any idiot can tell it is not millions of years!!!
Wake up!!!!
TopCat is offline

TopCat

Watcher

#515

Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 51

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 03:41
Originally Posted by Pladio View Post
The Evolution Theory is not a science. You are right. It's a scientific theory. Just like the Gravitational Theory is. You choosing to ignore evidence and us showing you a lot of evidence does not mean it's wrong.

We've refuted every single one of your arguments, including the ability for evolution to create information (see nylonase). Yet, you will go on with that line of argumentation next time you talk to someone.

This is one of the major reasons for people like Dawkins voices get heard so loudly.

It's like talking to a child with their fingers in their ears screaming : Lalalalala!



Nothing to do with what we've discussed and since you don't listen to arguments anyway, there is little point in me refuting that line of thinking.



Wow! You really do not understand sciences. These conclusions were arrived at with completely different methods and mindsets and with nothing to do with evolution.

Geologists figured out timescales on its own, independently of evolution.
Physicists predicted dark matter as part of a completely different theory, which again helps measure time independently of evolution.

The whole point is that all of these discoveries independently verify timescales and they all come down to similar conclusions (with none of them coming down to 6000 years old).

Because they all concur, they are then used together as evidence against arguments like yours!



cavemen/apemen ? I assume you mean the finds that turn out to be hoaxes. Yes, some people are dumb, greedy and want attention. The point is that science uncovered those as frauds. Religion doesn't do that and keeps ancient myths in its holy books with no regard for authenticity.

The trees of life as you call them are mere representations of the evidence! They are not evidence in and of themselves, another blatant misunderstanding on your part with relation to science.



Been addressed.



No, it isn't as we have refuted in this very thread !

I'm done with you, you can keep posting your nonsense.

As a summary:
- We've refuted your line of argument considering no gain of information possible. i.e. Degeneration as you defined is BS.
- We've refuted your arguments of use with the law of thermodynamics.

You certainly did not. You created a model that you could refute.
I said the universe is a closed system. You refuted that our solar system is in witch I totaly agree. So did you lie? or make a mistake?


- We've shown the basics of the mechanics of plate tectonics
I know it, I just have a better understanding to lean on to, more logic to me.
- You have shown to use conspiracy theorist strategies based on nonsense (see Dawkins professorship)
If you claim that hes sponsorship did not come from ouside the university you can ask him! He probably would know.
- Refuted your line of questioning regarding missing links

You absolutly did not ! Now you are going from one lie to another !!!

- You seem to think the theory of evolution is still based entirely on Darwin's books, but it actually has "evolved" a lot since then.
Thats a non saying statement
- You misunderstand or misrepresent scientific terms by rewording them : e.g. kind instead of species, with no definition for the word
I say that in this text there says kinds, not spieces.
Kinds of animals are simply the same for you as for threeyearolds dogs, cats, cows, giraffs, elephants and so on.

- We've taught you that most fish cannot go from freshwater to saltwater without dying.
Sorry, thats your next lie. I've seen it done.
the experiment ads saltwater slowly under several months hundreds of times faster than it really occured in the oceans.

- We've shown the ark to not be able to carry or provide for all the animals on it whether they be millions or thousands.

Next Lie! You are totaly full of lies
- You used other religion's mythologies to prove your own.
- You philosophise about all of this without using facts.

Well, that was an interesting conversation, but I'm done talking with you. Have a good evening.
I must say in all YOUARE ONE BIG LIAR…
TopCat is offline

TopCat

Watcher

#516

Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 51

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 07:16
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
Damian, you are coming across extremely ignorant because you don't even understand fundamentals like what the word "evidence" means.
Maybe i phrased it wrong but my comment still applies. For example if you find a persons with blood on a knife with the murder victims blood on it does it prove that he killed that person?
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#517

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 387

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 09:28
Again, you fail to understand the difference between evidence and proof. Evidence supports a scientific hypothesis and validates it, but few hypotheses can be proven without a doubt using evidence.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#518

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,865

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 12:03
Topcat, I really can't see how this perplexes you still. I'm just going to go on with one point and try once more. I'm not going to try with anything else. Let's finish this one point.

It's not even that complicated.

The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy, a measure of randomness, cannot decrease in a isolated system. Our planet is not an isolated system.
It's quite simple.

So even if the universe in total is an isolated system, our planet is NOT.

So our planet's entropy can both increase and decrease…

An example here on earth :
Failure to understand that in thermodynamics probabilities are not fixed entities has led to a misinterpretation that is responsible for the wide- spread and totally false belief that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules.
Pladio is offline

Pladio

Pladio's Avatar
Guardian of Nonsense
RPGWatch Donor

#519

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, uk
Posts: 3,037
Send a message via MSN to Pladio

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 12:56
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
Again, you fail to understand the difference between evidence and proof. Evidence supports a scientific hypothesis and validates it, but few hypotheses can be proven without a doubt using evidence.
Hmm it looks like we are looking at the same thing from different angles.
Damian is offline

Damian

Sentinel

#520

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 387
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:32.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch