Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

Projection seems to be a common paradigm utilized by some here.

I've lost interest in engaging some people that just repeat the same nonsense over and over despite being constantly corrected on it. It sure doesn't encourage discussion. It shuts it down.

I was going to take a drink every time there was a repeat of what Denis Noble says, but not enough time has passed for that much alcohol to exist in the universe.

It had been a while since I checked the source of Noble's claims. At least the one that he referred to last time as "proof" was merely a lecture. Some people do not understand that just because an article is in a peer reviewed publication that does not mean it has gone through peer review. And I am pretty sure that any article claiming that all of the mechanisms of the New Synthesis has been refuted has not been peer reviewed. It was merely the opinion of a man that was not an expert in the field. But any source is good if it supports a creationist

EDIT: Even respected PhD chemists have made that same error. James Tour, who not only has a PhD, but is an active professor in organic chemistry made that sort of error when trying to refute Jack Szostak. He keep ranting about how it was in the "primary literature" meaning that it was peer reviewed when it was merely a general article to help to inform people in a peer reviewed journal. Since it was informal he used various shortcuts that chemists use in notation. There is nothing wrong with shortcuts in an informal work. Meanwhile Tour was claiming "that is not a sugar" when it was. Merely one drawn in a very general form, or that is not a 'nucleic acid" (if I remember correctly) when it was. Once again common shortcuts were used for a nonpeer reviewed journal. Tour openly called Szostak a liar and had to apologize for it, it was of course not a genuine apology since he never fully admitted how he was wrong, but it is on record.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It had been a while since I checked the source of Noble's claims. At least the one that he referred to last time as "proof" was merely a lecture. Some people do not understand that just because an article is in a peer reviewed publication that does not mean it has gone through peer review. And I am pretty sure that any article claiming that all of the mechanisms of the New Synthesis has been refuted has not been peer reviewed. It was merely the opinion of a man that was not an expert in the field. But any source is good if it supports a creationist

I know that several people have rebutted a lot of that heavy rotation chess, but none those have gotten any response other than to repeat Denis Noble says. Is that deifying Denis?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It had been a while since I checked the source of Noble's claims. At least the one that he referred to last time as "proof" was merely a lecture. Some people do not understand that just because an article is in a peer reviewed publication that does not mean it has gone through peer review. And I am pretty sure that any article claiming that all of the mechanisms of the New Synthesis has been refuted has not been peer reviewed. It was merely the opinion of a man that was not an expert in the field. But any source is good if it supports a creationist

It's not just repeating Denis Noble either. It is repeat an entire host of refuted claims over and over and then using logical fallacies to address any response or ignore it when it clearly refutes the repetition.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When you can show evidence and reason behind the Lucy situation please do. Thanks.

What's up with Lucy. Does she have some splainin' to do?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not just repeating Denis Noble either. It is repeat an entire host of refuted claims over and over and then using logical fallacies to address any response or ignore it when it clearly refutes the repetition.

I know. Which is why I thank them for doing that since they are merely admitting that they are wrong by bringing up old failed arguments. That frustrates the heck out of some of them. @LIIA was forced to go back to his article and the source of it refuted his claim. So delicious when people provide the ammo to refute their own claims.

 

[YoursTrue]

Poorly asked question. Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. What is going to happen to them?

But what is going to happen to me is the same thing that happens to you.

I don't know. But what I did look into is accounts of a flood. According to one source, "we cannot appeal to geology for direct proof of the Noachian Deluge, recent geological discoveries do show that such a catastrophe is perfectly credible from a scientific point of view; and the supposition that there was a universal destruction of the human race, in the northern hemisphere at least, in connection with the floods accompanying the melting off of the glacial ice is supported by a great amount of evidence. There was certainly an extensive destruction of animal species associated with man during that period." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) I'll leave it at that for the time being.
Gorillas do not communicate in the same way humans do. Turtles don't either. I haven't seen anything leading to the idea they think about evolution or death as humans do. By the way.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know. Which is why I thank them for doing that since they are merely admitting that they are wrong by bringing up old failed arguments. That frustrates the heck out of some of them. @LIIA was forced to go back to his article and the source of it refuted his claim. So delicious when people provide the ammo to refute their own claims.

I too enjoy the self-refuting efforts of so many that come out against science. It is the problem of viewing the world as if it were a tiny little box.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think it is. I know some groups keep claiming it, but then nothing happens and they crawfish and claim that's not what they meant and then just make new claims.

Either way, the doomsday time clock seems to be getting closer to midnight. Oops --
90 seconds to midnight
2023 Doomsday Clock Statement
Science and Security Board
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Editor, John Mecklin
January 24, 2023
Current Time - 2023 - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (thebulletin.org)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know. But what I did look into is accounts of a flood. According to one source, "we cannot appeal to geology for direct proof of the Noachian Deluge, recent geological discoveries do show that such a catastrophe is perfectly credible from a scientific point of view; and the supposition that there was a universal destruction of the human race, in the northern hemisphere at least, in connection with the floods accompanying the melting off of the glacial ice is supported by a great amount of evidence. There was certainly an extensive destruction of animal species associated with man during that period." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) I'll leave it at that for the time being.
Gorillas do not communicate in the same way humans do. Turtles don't either. I haven't seen anything leading to the idea they think about evolution or death as humans do. By the way.

There is no evidence supporting a global flood anytime in the last 20 million years. Based on what we know through science, such a flood is not possible.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think it is. I know some groups keep claiming it, but then nothing happens and they crawfish and claim that's not what they meant and then just make new claims.

I guess you can keep waiting.
Current Time - 2023 - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (thebulletin.org)
nothing biblical about it -- closest it's ever been to 'doomsday'

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no evidence supporting a global flood anytime in the last 20 million years. Based on what we know through science, such a flood is not possible.

"...recently scientists have started to uncover evidence that Noah's flood may have a basis in some rather astonishing events that took place around the Black Sea some 7,500 years ago." Really? Scientists have started to uncover EVIDENCE? that the flood account may have a basis in some rather astonishing events that took place a while back? hmmm. Isn't that interesting...Evidence for a Flood | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Either way, the doomsday time clock seems to be getting closer to midnight. Oops --
90 seconds to midnight
2023 Doomsday Clock Statement
Science and Security Board
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Editor, John Mecklin
January 24, 2023
Current Time - 2023 - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (thebulletin.org)

I prefer 2 Minutes to Midnight myself.

Ever so often some nut that wants to leave a legacy behind as a great ruler yanks the chain, but even the crazies like Putin don't have free rein. More likely some doomsday religionist with a backpack nuke or something like that to use against the unbelievers is more of a threat.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"...recently scientists have started to uncover evidence that Noah's flood may have a basis in some rather astonishing events that took place around the Black Sea some 7,500 years ago." Really? Scientists have started to uncover EVIDENCE? that the flood account may have a basis in some rather astonishing events that took place a while back? hmmm. Isn't that interesting...Evidence for a Flood | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

I'm familiar with that. That I accept. A large local flood turned into an allegorical myth. But it wasn't global, didn't kill everything and no need for an ark full of animals.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"...recently scientists have started to uncover evidence that Noah's flood may have a basis in some rather astonishing events that took place around the Black Sea some 7,500 years ago." Really? Scientists have started to uncover EVIDENCE? that the flood account may have a basis in some rather astonishing events that took place a while back? hmmm. Isn't that interesting...Evidence for a Flood | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

Having a basis in actual events is not supporting the final claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know. But what I did look into is accounts of a flood. According to one source, "we cannot appeal to geology for direct proof of the Noachian Deluge, recent geological discoveries do show that such a catastrophe is perfectly credible from a scientific point of view; and the supposition that there was a universal destruction of the human race, in the northern hemisphere at least, in connection with the floods accompanying the melting off of the glacial ice is supported by a great amount of evidence. There was certainly an extensive destruction of animal species associated with man during that period." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) I'll leave it at that for the time being.
Gorillas do not communicate in the same way humans do. Turtles don't either. I haven't seen anything leading to the idea they think about evolution or death as humans do. By the way.

You need to go to valid sources. Or you could try to give me models of the flood and how we know that it never happened.

You are sadly listening to liar and idiots. Try to go to scientific sources. Tell me, why would you listen to people that willingly lie for Jesus?

And what difference does it make how gorillas communicate? And they actually do communicate in ways that even you would understand. Just remember, when you make such claims as "they do not communicate" that puts a burden of proof upon you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"...recently scientists have started to uncover evidence that Noah's flood may have a basis in some rather astonishing events that took place around the Black Sea some 7,500 years ago." Really? Scientists have started to uncover EVIDENCE? that the flood account may have a basis in some rather astonishing events that took place a while back? hmmm. Isn't that interesting...Evidence for a Flood | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

Yes, we do know what flood probably inspired the original myth., spoiler alert, it was not in the Bible. But that was just a local flood. It would not have accomplished what the Bible story said happened. I probably still have that source bookmarked:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | National Center for Science Education

Now, do you know where the Hebrews got their myth from?

 

[YoursTrue]

@Dan From Smithville and @Subduction Zone Here's another you might enjoy about "evidence..." Now this is interesting -- "The skeletal remains of a "wild" female horse found buried in a big ancient lake in Utah and thought to date back 16,000 years to the last ice age are actually no older than 340 years old, a new study finds. The bones, unearthed by landscapers in a Lehi, Utah backyard in 2018, were initially dated to a period that ended roughly 11,700 years ago." From 16,000 to 340 years old.

'Ice age' horse skeleton found in Utah backyard isn't what we thought | Live Science

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, we do know what flood probably inspired the original myth., spoiler alert, it was not in the Bible. But that was just a local flood. It would not have accomplished what the Bible story said happened. I probably still have that source bookmarked:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | National Center for Science Education

Now, do you know where the Hebrews got their myth from?

Do you? Furthermore it must have been a pretty big flood for it to be in so many accounts/myths. Disney wasn't around then.

 

[YoursTrue]

You need to go to valid sources. Or you could try to give me models of the flood and how we know that it never happened.

You are sadly listening to liar and idiots. Try to go to scientific sources. Tell me, why would you listen to people that willingly lie for Jesus?

And what difference does it make how gorillas communicate? And they actually do communicate in ways that even you would understand. Just remember, when you make such claims as "they do not communicate" that puts a burden of proof upon you.

At least these scientists had the integrity to admit they mistook the dates of a horse. 'Ice age' horse skeleton found in Utah backyard isn't what we thought | Live Science

 

[YoursTrue]

Having a basis in actual events is not supporting the final claims.

Ah -- having a basis in actual events -- I like that ...