|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
8th February 2013, 05:22 PM | #4161 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
Those issues have been addressed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html |
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
8th February 2013, 05:26 PM | #4162 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
8th February 2013, 05:38 PM | #4163 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
You are a troll. It's not against the rules.
Nope. It's an observation of your behaviour. It does. More of a leftover from our ape prehistory. It doesn't have to have any particular advantage. Much like our useless appendix. Either evolution has left us with a useless and potentially dangerous appendage, or your dog intentionally put it in there for no reason other that it's capricious nature, dog's or the appendix, pick one. |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
8th February 2013, 06:00 PM | #4164 |
Daydreamer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
|
|
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim |
|
8th February 2013, 06:30 PM | #4165 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
|
8th February 2013, 06:38 PM | #4166 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Here Now
Posts: 12,226
|
Gibhor -
You do know that none of the writers of the new testament are actually eyewitnesses. All of them were written 60 or 100 years after the fact. Did you not know that? There are so many contradiction in the bible it's almost comical. |
8th February 2013, 07:07 PM | #4167 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
Note, I didn't actually call you a troll, I simply presented the two most viable options for why you choose to present yourself the way you do, despite the responses given to you. If you're not a troll, though, you simply desire to push others to hell, you immoral ****. Or, I suppose you could just be incredibly unintelligent enough that you can't understand that your actions can have undesirable consequences, in which case I take back the immoral comment. Regardless, women do grow facial hair. Heck, I've seen my mom with a bunch of it a few times. Given that she qualifies as a woman in every way, I'd tend to say that you've really, really got nothing to work with, here.
Either way, it's a common perception among both genders that men prefer women without beards or facial hair in general. Looking at history, this is commonplace, so women with less facial hair or the ability to remove it better are more likely to reproduce, and women with more facial hair and without the ability to remove it are less likely to reproduce. And... what do you know? Evolution occurs! ETA: Incidentally, pointing out that someone is a troll is not an admittance that one has no good arguments. It's simply not an argument, and if it's the only thing presented, which has very much not been the case here, it still doesn't count as an argument. |
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
8th February 2013, 07:10 PM | #4168 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
|
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
8th February 2013, 07:16 PM | #4169 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
8th February 2013, 07:20 PM | #4170 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
8th February 2013, 07:26 PM | #4171 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
there is a lot of evidence for a world wide flood :
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYo...wide_flood.htm |
8th February 2013, 07:30 PM | #4172 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
Are the apes in question human, with the human cultures in question? If not, then you honestly have nothing with this line of questioning. Honestly, I don't feel like going into depth about why some traits are considered more attractive by particular populations than others, right now. There's been a lot of research done on that very question, though, as I recall, and a lot of things learned. None of them that support the validity of your desired argument, though, as I recall.
|
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
8th February 2013, 07:37 PM | #4173 |
Dark Lord of the JREF
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,805
|
|
__________________
"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head." |
|
8th February 2013, 07:40 PM | #4174 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
Luke wasn't an apostle. and many of the texts contain stories where the "author" wouldn't have been present. Hence, they are clearly not eye witness accounts.
Why does a peacock display it's plumage? We can now add geology to the list of sciences you do not understand. |
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
8th February 2013, 08:17 PM | #4175 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
Who do we have here:
One well-documented treatment of this subject (replacing evolutionary dogma with objective, critical evaluation) may be found in Dr. Duane Gish’s recently updated book: - Gish, D. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. 1995. ISBN 0-89051-112-8 |
8th February 2013, 08:52 PM | #4176 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
Quite famous for the Gish Gallop, GIBHOR, if you hadn't heard.
Quote:
|
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
8th February 2013, 09:47 PM | #4177 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
Apes other than humans have their own types of sexual dimorphisms. Mature male but not female gorillas develop silver hair on their backs. Female but not male baboons develop red coloration on their rears. Sexual dimorphism, as explained and cited earlier in this thread. Look it up.
|
8th February 2013, 09:49 PM | #4178 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
|
8th February 2013, 11:28 PM | #4179 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
9th February 2013, 05:39 AM | #4180 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
first you need to provide solid evidence th earth is 3 bi years old.
http://www.lifesorigin.com/chap10/RN...lication-3.php
Quote:
|
9th February 2013, 06:26 AM | #4181 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
9th February 2013, 06:58 AM | #4182 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
Worse? I disagree. They're still at about the same level. They're just ranging further and further afield, since the topic noted in the thread title and his actual purpose here have pretty much been beating a dead horse given how many times they've been gone over. Either way, Young Earth Creationism and the validity of it are likely better dealt with in a different thread, at this point. It's utter bunk, but there's just so very much utter bunk.
|
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
9th February 2013, 10:19 AM | #4183 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
|
For the same reason there's red, rather than no red.
For the same reason there's blue, irather than no blue. For the same reason there's large, rather than no large. For the same reason there's small, rather than no small. Reality is a descriptor of what exists, not a thing that was created. This is true regardless of whether what exists was created by a God, or natural mechanisms. |
9th February 2013, 10:33 AM | #4184 |
The Infinitely Prolonged
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
|
As has already been pointed out, this article does address them:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html But, here is my own brief summary: Evolution has never been observed. Most Creationists accept that evolution has been observed. They choose to call it "micro-evolution", instead of recognizing how lots and lots of "micro-evolutions" could yield something like a "macro-evolution". We have observed macro-evolution, as well, over relatively long periods of time. But, Creationists dismiss these that things that don't count as evolution, for various other reasons: "It is not an increase in information" is a common one, which is not really something that matters. Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics If this were true, life forms would never need to eat anything. Also: That fact that the evolutionary heritage of any given species is filled with trade-offs and comprimises seems to indicate that thermodynamics isn't even close to being violated. If you don't like things that violate thermodynamics, you should REALLY dislike the whole concept of an all-powerful god entity. At least the science of Evolution is forced to work within the realm of physics. There are no transitional fossils Your parents are transitional fossils. Mine are too! Our parents are transitions between our grandparents and ourselves. There are small differences between our grandparents and ourselves. Multiply those small differences by many millions of years of generations, and you can start to see how one species can look like an entirely different one, over time. The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance. Not at all. Chance might go into one end of the process, but what comes out of the other end is NOT random chance. The whole reason we study the process of Evolution, is to do a LOT better than chance!! Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved. It's been proven well enough that we can make use of it to solve real problems in various fields of biology: Medical research, species conservation, etc. That was a piece of cake! |
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! |
|
9th February 2013, 11:19 AM | #4185 |
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
|
OK, let me have a go.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
ETA: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory |
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett |
|
9th February 2013, 11:43 AM | #4186 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
Moving the goalposts yet another round?
You initially claimed that no self-replicating molecule had ever been discovered. When proven wrong, you claimed that these self-replicating molecules were designed, rather than evolved by selection. When proven wrong, you claimed that there wasn’t sufficient selection to allow these evolved, self-replicating molecules to develop in nature. Now, when proven wrong again, you want me to explain why the Earth is more than 3 billion years old (presumably in a single post, to someone who recently demanded in this thread to have us explain how lightning evolved). At this point I will respectfully ask you to read about it yourself, because “the margin of this page is too narrow to contain the proof” and because I’ll not continue play your game. A great place for you to start is, of course: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html. You might also notice that many of the sites you quoted to document the problems with ribozyme evolution actually accept an old Earth. |
9th February 2013, 11:45 AM | #4187 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
More generally, GIBHOR, science has shown how many of the organic molecules required for life can form naturally, how molecules can self-replicate, how evolution is a powerful process that can be documented by fossil evidence, by molecular tools, and by actual experiments running in real time. And most significantly, the gaps in our knowledge that remain have become smaller and smaller the more we learn. A major gap in Darwin’s theory when first proposed was a lack of information as to how traits are encoded genetically, until that gap was eliminated over the next hundred years of scientific progress. Transitional forms first absent from the fossil record have been subsequently found. Self-replicating RNAs, not known in 1990, were discovered in the last few decades. There is every reason to assume that the gaps that remain will have naturalistic explanations, just like all the gaps that have filled to date.
The expansion of human knowledge over hundreds of thousands of years has repeatedly revealed naturalistic explanations for the previously mysterious. These explanations are reproducible and can be tested by anyone who doubts them. Not once has God been proven as an explanation (no, not even of lightning). You propose against all logic that, unlike these previous gaps, the remaining, ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge can only be explained as the actions of an invisible, unobservable, untestable God. A God that no two religions (no two sects within one religion) fully agree on. A God whose realm of influence has been in constant retreat as more is discovered. Good luck with that. |
9th February 2013, 07:27 PM | #4188 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
So life is not based on information?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
9th February 2013, 07:30 PM | #4189 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
9th February 2013, 07:36 PM | #4190 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
9th February 2013, 07:42 PM | #4191 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
9th February 2013, 07:48 PM | #4192 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
9th February 2013, 07:53 PM | #4193 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
9th February 2013, 07:59 PM | #4194 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,057
|
so basically the only acceptable evidence is a replication of original conditions and billions of years?
Are you serious? |
__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas |
|
9th February 2013, 08:03 PM | #4195 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
Pick a version of "information." Probably not, though.
Which part? Either way, plenty, evidence wise, for each of them. Incidentally, you're free to demonstrate what the necessary hurdle is between "micro" and "macro" evolution is, if you want to even begin to claim that macro isn't just a lot of micro. Heh. Why would we need to? We're not claiming that life had to have arisen on Earth. As it is, though, there was a rather large area where life could have arisen and a very long time frame in which it could have. As for the creationist "probabilities" intended to make it seem nigh impossible? Generally based on blatantly false premises, which means that they're completely untrustworthy. The "probability" of life forming in conditions where it can form, with sufficient time and space, is far from negligible. Incidentally, theists posited that every planet and asteroid in the solar systems was covered in people, all who praised the same god that they did, based on theology, and this was actually a fairly common belief for a while. That being the case, incidentally, would potentially be a reasonable argument for a "God," though not proof. Sounds like empty creationist propaganda through and through, honestly. |
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
9th February 2013, 08:04 PM | #4196 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
9th February 2013, 08:16 PM | #4197 |
The Infinitely Prolonged
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
|
Correct.
What life is "based on" might only look like information, from hindsight. The bigger point is that evolution has been observed. The fossil record, DNA evidence, etc. show this happened. The overall trends and patterns match what would be expected. Of course, you dismiss all of that as "unreliable" for various reasons. Computer simulations show us that it can happen, but you dismiss that as "unrealistic". We have seen significant changes emerging from specific species: Mosquitos adapting to the London subway systems, by developing parts to parasite rats better. But, you might only see that as "micro" evolution. We have the evidence. Always did. All you have are excuses.... and no evidence. The bigger point is that there is no shortage of "transitional fossils". All fossils are transitions, actually. Self-replicating molecules that preceded RNA. Some proposals, such as PNA (peptide nucleic acid) could work. Abiogenesis studies are working out some of the details. If you studied networking and graph theories, you will find it was almost inevitable for something like life to emerge, eventually, given all of the opportunities for these different molecules to form and interact over time. The bigger point is that evolution does NOT proceed through random chance! The Kakapo was a highly endangered species that has been brought from the brink of extinction to a relatively successful breeding program, because scientists applies macro-scale-evolutionary thinking to help unravel their plight: They were able to pinpoint issues with their sex allocation (males vs. females) by relating their behavior to other specieis of birds. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib.../060401_kakapo "Macro-evolution" (as you call it) has been proved well enough that it can help us solve problems. Like what? |
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! |
|
9th February 2013, 09:07 PM | #4198 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
No point in repeating myseff: other posters here independently noted your obvious, if feeble, attempts to shift the argument each time you were proven wrong. Anyone can go back in the thread and see for themselves. If you don't wish to be proven wrong then don't make incorrect statements.
|
9th February 2013, 09:20 PM | #4199 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
No, even that wouldn't be acceptable to GIBHOR because replicating the original conditions would involve "human intervention." God has to do the experiment!
As to whether he is serious or not: the "evolution of lightning" and "bearded women" posts certainly make me wonder... |
9th February 2013, 09:34 PM | #4200 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
GIBHOR,
Look up Niles Eldredge at the American Museum of Natural History and you will see just how dishonest that quote mining really is! Eldredge is a founder of the punctuated equilibrium view of evolution. He disagrees with early views of slow continuous change, not with evolution itself. In fact he is noted for his satirical dismissals of creationists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Eldredge |
Thread Tools | |
|
|