Appearance and DNA mismatch

[leroy]

What you said was.

So would you like to go back and try your post again?

Why didnt you quote the complete text?

Normal and reasonable people reject both people like Hovid and people like Dawkins because we know they don’t have the authority nor the credentials nor the evidence that shows that they are qualified to “disprove” Evolution / philosophical arguments for God respectively.

 

[ChristineM]

Why didnt you quote the complete text?

Normal and reasonable people reject both people like Hovid and people like Dawkins because we know they don’t have the authority nor the credentials nor the evidence that shows that they are qualified to “disprove” Evolution / philosophical arguments for God respectively.

The segment i quoted says all that i needed to show you about what you wrote. Are you denying that you wrote what i quoted and then misrepresented yourself later?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes thats true, but only if you compare the genes that they have in common.

So if you ignore all the none coding DNA , Ignore all the genes that humans have a and are absent in chimps, and you ignore the location of a gene, then yes the difference between humans and Chimps is 1-2%

As an analogy that would be like saying that my cellphone and yours are 98% similar only if you consider the apps that we have in common. (perhaps my whatsapp and you are 98% similar because I have a different version of it) you would have to ignore that apps that are unique in my phone and ignore everything in the phone that has nothing to do with apps in order to get that 98%

To me the 98% is misleading, but scientist are not being misleading in their papers, those who “translate” the information for the general public are the ones who over simply the evidence and make it seem as if we were 98% chimps.

In any case, this 98% similarity strongly suggests that we share a common ancestor, but it stognly refutes Darwinism , because even 2% is too much for random mutations and natural selection to account for that difference, it seems obvious that there are more relevant mechanisms besides random mutations and natural selection.

Nope, the genes that we share are in very similar positions. Do you have evidence to the contrary? I would love to see it.

 

[F1fan]

The strawman is yours. What I said is that Dawkins has no authority to “refute” philosophical arguments for the existence of God (like Aquinas 5 ways) in the same way Hovid has no authority to “refute evolution”

Dawkins has every authority to refute a philosophical argument IF that argument is weak and flawed because it is based on unwarranted assumptions. Every rational thinker has this authority, and that's because this argument is not based on facts.

But Hovind has no authority because his view is equally flawed, so can't supersede evolution which IS based on facts.

 

[leroy]

The segment i quoted says all that i needed to show you about what you wrote. Are you denying that you wrote what i quoted and then misrepresented yourself later?

No / your incomplete quote is a delivered and dishonest attempt to misrepresented what i said......

Just to be clear
1 kent hovind is not qualified to "refure" evolution

2 Dawkins is not qualified to "refute" Philosophical arguments for the existence of God.

Tbis is and gad alawys been what I said.

 

[leroy]

Nope, the genes that we share are in very similar positions. Do you have evidence to the contrary? I would love to see it.

All I am saying is that any difference in the location does not add to the 1% difference..... which is ok I am not implying bad nor dishonest methodology in science I am just sharing a curious fact .

But your claim is interesting (and news to me) care to provide a source ?

 

[ChristineM]

No / your incomplete quote is a delivered and dishonest attempt to misrepresented what i said.....

Bull poop i quoted precisely the relevant portion of what you said.

Quoting the whole paragraph it says exactly the same but adds an other personality that i was not discussing
And adding to at a later date is simply moving the goalposts

Sorry you don't like it but like i said at the very beginning, i am not playing your silly games

 

[leroy]

Dawkins has every authority to refute a philosophical argument IF that argument is weak and flawed because it is based on unwarranted assumptions. Every rational thinker has this authority, and that's because this argument is not based on facts.

But Hovind has no authority because his view is equally flawed, so can't supersede evolution which IS based on facts.

This is the type of intelectual dishonesty common in the new atheists community.

New Atheists say
1 If you are not an expert in biology and evolution nor you haven't shown that you have knowledge on that field you have no authority to "refute" evolution

2 but any clown has the authority to refute Philosophical arguments for the existence of God even if he is not a philosopher nor has proven to have knowledge or to be an expert on this in this area.

See the hypocrisy?

Normal and reasonable people say

If one is not an expert nor has proven to have knowledge on a specific field he is not qualified to refute an argument

Why would a biologists like Dawkins have the authority to refute say Aquinas 5 ways?

Why would a preacher like kent Hovind have the authority to refute say radiometric dating ?

 

[leroy]

Bull poop i quoted precisely the relevant portion of what you said.

Quoting the whole paragraph it says exactly the same but adds an other personality that i was not discussing
And adding to at a later date is simply moving the goalposts

Sorry you don't like it but like i said at the very beginning, i am not playing your silly games

Its perplexing and disappointing how you are unable to admit your mistakes

The complete quote says that Dawkins is not qualified to "refute" philosophical arguments for God.

Your dishonest quote mining made it seem as if I where saying that Dawkins has no authority in biology and evolution.

 

[F1fan]

This is the type of intelectual dishonesty common in the new atheists community.

New Atheists say
1 If you are not an expert in biology and evolution nor you haven't shown that you have knowledge on that field you have no authority to "refute" evolution

There is no intellectual dishonestly in this at all. Why would non-experts have any authority or knowledge to refute a subject they are not well informed about? We see those who attempt to refute evolution make flaws in their efforts, and that is due to 1. lack of knowledge, and 2. bias due to their religious beliefs.

2 but any clown has the authority to refute Philosophical arguments for the existence of God even if he is not a philosopher nor has proven to have knowledge or to be an expert on this in this area.

See the hypocrisy?

No. I already explained that evolution is science and based on facts. Philosophy isn't fact based. Religion not only isn't fact-based but oft contrary to facts. No Gods are known to exist, so there is no valid conclusion in arguing for any God. All the arguments for a God are flawed with certain assumptions being made that help the person make the conclusion they seek. These are conditional argument and there remains holes in them because the assumptions can't be verified. So we throw them out.

Normal and reasonable people say

If one is not an expert nor has proven to have knowledge on a specific field he is not qualified to refute an argument

It depends on the argument. Some religious arguments are so bad and flawed that a person with average intelligence and reasoning skill an tear it apart. Other arguments are more complex so takes more experience and study. In the end religious arguments fail to meet any objective conclusion.

Why would a biologists like Dawkins have the authority to refute say

Aquinas 5 ways?

Because the religious arguments are flawed from the start. It only takes a smart mind to find these flaws and point them out.

Why would a preacher like kent Hovind have the authority to refute say radiometric dating ?

If he goes against what experts in that field of science say and he can't show better understanding of the science, then he is arrogant and delusional. He's a known conman and promotes false religious beliefs, so his credibility is in the gutter.

 

[ChristineM]

Its perplexing and disappointing how you are unable to admit your mistakes

The complete quote says that Dawkins is not qualified to "refute" philosophical arguments for God.

Your dishonest quote mining made it seem as if I where saying that Dawkins has no authority in biology and evolution.

Looked in a mirror lately? The mistake is yours and rathere than admit it you have changed your story twice.

The complete quote also says hecis not qualified to speak on evolution, which I highlighted and you have done nothing but dance ever since.

As i said, sorry you don't like it but perhaps its time to man up. You never know, you could even earn some respect.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

New Atheists say
1 If you are not an expert in biology and evolution nor you haven't shown that you have knowledge on that field you have no authority to "refute" evolution
2 but any clown has the authority to refute Philosophical arguments for the existence of God even if he is not a philosopher nor has proven to have knowledge or to be an expert on this in this area.

You don't have to be an expert in biology or evolution to offer opinions about them, but if you're not an expert in the field, your opinion is not heard by those who are experts. It's not because they are being disagreed with that they aren't listening to creationists, for example. They're also not interested in the opinions of lay people who happen to agree with them. This is also the case with climate scientists. They're not surveying the public for opinions. Why would they? Why would the opinion of a lay person matter to experts whether it agreed with them or not?

The complete quote says that Dawkins is not qualified to "refute" philosophical arguments for God.

But he is. So are many of the posters on this forum. Expertise in critical thought is common. Kalam cosmological argument, for example, is easily refuted. It contains a non sequitur between
3. “Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.” and 4. “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.”

 

[Heyo]

But he is. So are many of the posters on this forum. Expertise in critical thought is common. Kalam cosmological argument, for example, is easily refuted. It contains a non sequitur between
3. “Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.” and 4. “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.”

Did you come up with that refutation? I bet you are citing an expert - just as Dawkins is often in philosophical questions. I.e. you are not the ones claiming authority nor expertise. The argument (attributed or not) stands on its own (maybe assisted by the authority of a philosopher who originated it). Also, neither you nor Dawkins have misrepresented the original position.
Contrary to that Hovind misrepresents evolution every time even after having been corrected. He hasn't understood nor is able to correctly cite scientific insights and has thus shown his lack of expertise. That is what @leroy seems not to understand. He has no authority to refute you or Dawkins.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Did you come up with that refutation?

Yes. It's a pretty obvious non sequitur. Reason doesn't take one from the universe has a cause to that cause must be a deity with specific qualities, his god. How did he eliminate the muiltiverse hypothesis, which requires no sentient creator? He didn't. He just never considered it.

you are not the ones claiming authority nor expertise

I'm not sure what you mean, but I do claim that I have the expertise to evaluate arguments for soundness sufficient to rely on my own judgments and expect them to be correct, and suspect that the same is true for you and many others on RF. For example, I do not expect a successful counter-rebuttal to the Kalam argument rebuttal.

The argument (attributed or not) stands on its own (maybe assisted by the authority of a philosopher who originated it).

Again, I'm not sure what you mean, but the argument we are discussing, the Kalam argument, like all other arguments for God, has been successfully refuted, and so doesn't stand at all. Maybe you meant something else.

Hovind misrepresents evolution

Agreed. He is a creationist not qualified to discuss science, and he has the agenda and values of an apologist rather than those of a scientist.

 

[Heyo]

I'm not sure what you mean, but I do claim that I have the expertise to evaluate arguments for soundness sufficient to rely on my own judgments and expect them to be correct, and suspect that the same is true for you and many others on RF. For example, I do not expect a successful counter-rebuttal to the Kalam argument rebuttal.

Well, it was a hypothesis which would have dismantled @leroy's argument from authority without having to discuss how we have authority/expertise. I have had original philosophical thoughts only to find later that others had them before (and often expressed them better). So even if I play the authority/expertise game, I can often point to an expert who agrees with me. And I bet Dawkins can also.

 

[leroy]

There is no intellectual dishonestly in this at all. Why would non-experts have any authority or knowledge to refute a subject they are not well informed about? We see those who attempt to refute evolution make flaws in their efforts, and that is due to 1. lack of knowledge, and 2. bias due to their religious beliefs.


No. I already explained that evolution is science and based on facts. Philosophy isn't fact based. Religion not only isn't fact-based but oft contrary to facts. No Gods are known to exist, so there is no valid conclusion in arguing for any God. All the arguments for a God are flawed with certain assumptions being made that help the person make the conclusion they seek. These are conditional argument and there remains holes in them because the assumptions can't be verified. So we throw them out.

It depends on the argument. Some religious arguments are so bad and flawed that a person with average intelligence and reasoning skill an tear it apart. Other arguments are more complex so takes more experience and study. In the end religious arguments fail to meet any objective conclusion.

Because the religious arguments are flawed from the start. It only takes a smart mind to find these flaws and point them out.


If he goes against what experts in that field of science say and he can't show better understanding of the science, then he is arrogant and delusional. He's a known conman and promotes false religious beliefs, so his credibility is in the gutter.

Philosophy isn't fact based.

being hostile againts philosophy (as if it were a secondary and unimportant field)

Typical new atheist behaiviour

In the end religious arguments fail to meet any objective conclusion

The KCA arguments concludes that the universe has a cause, under what basis do you say that the conclusion is not objective?

(suggestion, understand the meaning of objective before answering)

Other arguments are more complex so takes more experience and study.

Ok would you at least agree on that people like Dawkins are not qualified to critique those complex philospphical arguemnts. ?

 

[leroy]

Looked in a mirror lately? The mistake is yours and rathere than admit it you have changed your story twice.

The complete quote also says hecis not qualified to speak on evolution, which I highlighted and you have done nothing but dance ever since.

As i said, sorry you don't like it but perhaps its time to man up. You never know, you could even earn some respect.

Again you inability to admit your mistake is sad, a few days ago you could have said that it was an honest mistake and that you misread what I said / but now it´s too late, you are obviously being dishonest onpurpose.

 

[ChristineM]

Again you inability to admit your mistake is sad, a few days ago you could have said that it was an honest mistake and that you misread what I said / but now it´s too late, you are obviously being dishonest onpurpose.

 

[leroy]

You don't have to be an expert in biology or evolution to offer opinions about them, but if you're not an expert in the field, your opinion is not heard by those who are experts. It's not because they are being disagreed with that they aren't listening to creationists, for example. They're also not interested in the opinions of lay people who happen to agree with them. This is also the case with climate scientists. They're not surveying the public for opinions. Why would they? Why would the opinion of a lay person matter to experts whether it agreed with them or not?



But he is. So are many of the posters on this forum. Expertise in critical thought is common. Kalam cosmological argument, for example, is easily refuted. It contains a non sequitur between
3. “Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.” and 4. “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.”

I am not saying that non-experts can´t share their opinions, I am just saying that not-experts like Kent Hovind has no authority to conclude and affirm as fact that evolution is wrong, in the same way Richard Dawkins has no authority to conclude (and affirm as fact) a philosophical argument for God is wrong … any disagreement from your part?

3. “Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.” and 4. “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

Well arguments are typically given to justify that 4 follows from 3 , are you familiar with those arguments? How would you respond to them?

For example the cause of the universe (which includes time) by definition would have to be “something timeless” this is logically necessarily, something that requires “time” to exist, by definition could have not been the cause of time.

This is analogous to “the cause of the first computer, by definition could have not been another computer, (otherwise it wouldn’t be the first computer)

At this point do you agree?

, is easily refuted

Don’t you think you are being way to arrogant there? I agree on that some experts agree with you, but nobody would go as far as to claim that “it´s easy to refute”

 

[leroy]

Did you come up with that refutation? I bet you are citing an expert - just as Dawkins is often in philosophical questions. I.e. you are not the ones claiming authority nor expertise. The argument (attributed or not) stands on its own (maybe assisted by the authority of a philosopher who originated it). Also, neither you nor Dawkins have misrepresented the original position.
Contrary to that Hovind misrepresents evolution every time even after having been corrected. He hasn't understood nor is able to correctly cite scientific insights and has thus shown his lack of expertise. That is what @leroy seems not to understand. He has no authority to refute you or Dawkins.

Do you honestly think that Dawkins is in a position to say with authority that something like “Aquinas 5 ways fail?” we both agree that Kent Hovind has no authority to say things like radiometric dating fails what I fail to understand is why isn’t the Dawkins example analogous under your eyes? It seems to me that both scenarios are analogous.