• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Miracle of Water.

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Well Hurray for you. Did you do a dance skip and a hop?


If I repeat it sixty million times, I am not sure you will understand it either.
I don't think asking you to think should be a problem, because I believe you know how to think. I also know you got my point the last time. So here is what I will do.
You said...
I do not believe in the devil so do not understand that reference.
I am sure the tribes their have their own philosophy with out me intruding.


Could you take those statements, think about them for a moment - take your time, and see if you can connect it to what I say next.
I do not believe I am an animal, and do not apply the term in the same way you do, or your following.
I do not accept your philosophy, nor the philosophy of your following. You can say I have my own philosophy, and it would be "oh so lovely" , if you stop trying to intrude.
I believe the system that you are happy to be in, is under the rule of the Devil, whom I believe is real, and those who allow themselves to be ruled by the system are being manipulated to follow like zombies every "wind of teaching" promoted by the Devil - including telling you that, "No, you are not special. You are merely an animal. You are an ape. You are a lungfish. You are a mere bacteria."

If you are a happy zombie, that's all well and good with me, all the more zombies for God to round up and slaughter. Good riddance to all the zombies. ;)
I hope that was not so difficult to understand.

Oh, one more thing. If you ever return to my island, to disturb me with your philosophy, we have plenty spears. :D <Joke>
Seriously though, feel free to follow your doctrines, but please don't try to force what your religious book says, down my throat. Otherwise, I will take that as an invitation to do the same. Deal? :)


Okay, let me ask this then, because really what I am trying to find out is if you think that ID scientist are presenting a religious argument, or a scientific one.
Are you saying that ID scientist do not do science, do not have labs from which they operate, do not publish peer reviewed material, etc. Do you think they are not real scientists? Are you saying you don't know what their argument for ID is?
Yes I am happy to be an animal living in an amazing world. I am like you an animal but also a human. Related to apes and much more distantly to lungfish and even more distantly related to bacteria. The fact you cannot understand such a simple and important concept does not seem in keeping with the fact that you seem intelligent enough to grasp this simple biological fact.
By the way the devil does not exist except in the minds of some humans. It is disturbing to me you can not see through this illusion. My belief system has nothing to do with your fantasy devil. Also by the way zombies do not exist just as vampires, werewolves and other human created fantasy.

Since this is a forum about beliefs the fact I disagree with it does not mean I am forcing my ideas on you. Just presenting what is known about our world something you reject. I am sorry you reject and cannot see the true beauty of the world around you but do not apply you fantasy of the devil which has as much proof as the creation myth on me. The devil lives within you brain not mine. ID scientists may have labs and may print in peer reviewed journals although it would be interesting to see which journal you could find and give an example of their research specific to ID. I would love to read it. Try to find at least one please.

Maybe if you had more respect for the other living things in our world which we are so dependent on then maybe you could see how proud you would be to call yourself animal. The humility of seeing you to be the one of many forms of life that share this planet would be such an enlightening experience.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Can you please show me where I...

I remember saying just this,,,,
Many people being born and given the knowledge that everything came from nothing, will likely believe that.
....They are raised by evolutionist - perhaps even atheist.


I explained what I meant...
Again, it seems you did not understand what I said.
Are there persons being born to atheist and evolutionist? Yes.
Do some of these turn to Christianity, or some other religion, and do some reject evolution? Why?
It's not because they were brainwashed to believe in God, from birth.
They weight the knowledge they gained - both the brainwashing from their atheistic upbringing, and what they heard from the religious side. Using their reasoning ability, they reached a conclusion.
Will that continue? Yes.

It seemed to have been blown it out of proportion, but let's forget that, the thread is about water, so I think we have gone way off topic, and it is leading nowhere.
Can we talk about water?.


Okay. ...and some don't. Post #601


Yes, all can't be true, but I believe one is true.


Are you saying that there are no atheist that push their dogma at their children, or other children, and adults?
That would not be true. I showed a few cases, and if you like, I can get more for you.
'

Can you explain that please?
Actually atheists which is a huge range of beliefs do not try to indoctrinate anyone. The science that we live in presents the facts and theories which are not about a belief system but rather a process of investigation to understand out world and has nothing to do with religion. Science is open for one to accept or not and not to indoctrinate. That seems to be the realm or organized religions that want to convert everyone to their religion by any method they can use. I have known too many like that that use so many techniques including the fear of what will happen to you if you do not believe. That is indoctrination.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Both the fossil record and the d.n.a. comparative analysis are consistent in that the ancestral split between apes and humans appears to be around 6=7 million years ago. The Chad find about a decade ago is of an individual that shares so many human and ape characteristics that they've had difficulty classifying him, which is what we should expect to happen when we near that bridging time.

This is what the scientific evidence tell us at this point, so let me ask you where is your evidence that this could not be the case? Also, common sense should tell one that a mutation could potentially be beneficial almost immediately. As for "beneficial mutations", compare a modern human brain with the early stages of Homo erectus and you'll see that the brain size nearly doubles.

The evidence for human evolution is so overwhelming that no serious scientist doubts it today, especially anyone familiar with the fossil record or even just basic genetics.
I know that you have your reasons for believing in a theory, that doesn't have enough evidence to prove it, and I understand why you believe it.
I can therefore, see why you would think somewhat like Richard Dawkins, that somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, is ignorant, stupid or insane [or wicked].

However, there are reputable scientist that do not believe the theory. Do you think Dawkins is right about his statement - that such individuals are ignorant; stupid; insane; wicked.
If I used a process of elimination, I am sure I can rule out ignorant, stupid, and insane - no ignorant, stupid and insane people can get masters and PhDs. Do you agree?

So that leaves wicked, which Dawkins said, "but I’d rather not consider that."
Do you think they are wicked?

Rather. Could it be that there is no supportive evidence for evolution, other than what is assumed, based on three premises - 1. a proposition; 2. what is being looked for; 3. natural science.
If indeed there was supportive evidence, then everyone should agree, don't you think?

For example, there is no sane person that would tell you that storks deliver babies. We all know how babies are delivered, and we all agree, isn't that that true? Why?
There is solid supportive evidence - irrefutable; undeniable.

Can that be said of evolution?
Really, I think in the mind of persons that have convinced themselves, the answer is yes, but doubts exist even in the minds of some in the community that accept it. Why? One way or another, it does not interfere with their research and progress.

Sequencing the genome reveals a lot for advanced practice. It doesn't prove we evolved.
What is learned from DNA is beneficial to scientists. It doesn't prove where we came from. It can't, and hundreds of hardworking honest scientists know this. Do you disagree?

The fossil record does not support evolution, and honest scientists tell us this. Making inferences about fossils, by examining their similarities, does not mean that those assumptions are correct.
Isn't that why there are ongoing debates before there is a decision that is based on a majority ruling?
If there was a situation where there was a 50-50, or a three or four direction split, that would be quite embarrassing, would it, so it makes sense that some would concede, doesn't it.
We can deny that these are men - human beings - subject to bias.
...it is actually human nature – our tendency to interpret data to fit our beliefs...

There is a lot more I can say, but it would make the post way too long, and I would have to split it, but we know there are problems with the theory. I know there are explanations given on on how it can work, but explanations are not actual occurrences - especially when one doesn't really know how it happened.

Anyway, consider the below information.
I took the entire article off, because I wanted to highlight my points in red.

The last common ancestor of humans and chimps probably wasn’t much like either
BY
ERIN WAYMAN
12:00AM, SEPTEMBER 30, 2013

Picture it: an African forest 7 million years ago. An evolutionary split is under way. One species of ape is about to give rise to two distinct lineages; one leading to humans, the other to chimpanzees. What does this last common ancestor of humans and their closest living relatives look like?

For years, many researchers have just imagined a chimpanzee.

At first glance, that seems sensible. Even though chimpanzees are genetically closer to humans than they are to the other great apes, chimps appear to have much more in common with gorillas and orangutans than with humans. These apes all look so similar and primitive: shaggy beasts with long arms and handlike feet for climbing and swinging through trees. Humans are the oddballs in this group. With naked bodies, nimble hands, a two-legged stance and, of course, supreme intellect, it seems logical that hominids have changed much more over the last 7 million years than chimps and their ancestors. This kind of thinking has led some scientists to view chimpanzees as a kind of baseline from which hominid anatomy and behavior evolved.

But over the last few decades, anthropologists have realized that this view of evolution is too simplistic and human-centric — and insulting to chimpanzees. In reality, our closest living cousins are not frozen in time; the chimp lineage has undergone its own evolution over the last several million years.

One source of flawed thinking about the human-chimp ancestor may be the sparse fossil record of chimps and their predecessors. Scientists have little tangible evidence to track chimp evolution, so it’s easy to imagine that their lineage hasn’t changed much. But there are plenty of signs that these apes aren’t stuck in a time warp.

Some of those signs are written in DNA. In 2007, biologists reported that chimpanzees have more genes that appear to have been changed by natural selection than humans do (233 versus 154 out of nearly 14,000 shared genes).

Behaviorally speaking, chimps are also unlikely to be carbon copies of their last common ancestor with humans, a fact demonstrated by Czech researchers in August. The team used a family tree of apes and monkeys and 65 characteristics related to development, ecology and mating and social behavior to reconstruct ancestors for various branches in the tree. The findings suggest that both humans and chimpanzees evolved a plethora of unique traits since separating from their common ancestor, Pavel Duda and Jan Zrzavý of the Czech Republic’s University of South Bohemia conclude in the Journal of Human Evolution. (Gorillas, by comparison, may be quite primitive, having kept many attributes of the common ancestor of great apes and humans that lived roughly 15 million years ago.)

With their analysis, Duda and Zrzavý paint a picture of the lifestyle of the human-chimp ancestor. They speculate that the ape lived in groups where one male bred with several females and he provided some care and protection to his progeny. In contrast, modern chimps are more promiscuous, living in large communities where many males mate with many females and vice versa. Humans are considered monogamous, although our mating behavior does vary around the world.

Other evidence hints that the body plan of chimpanzees has also changed dramatically since the human-chimp split, according to anthropologists who unearthed and analyzed what they claim is the closest thing anybody has ever seen to a fossil of a human-chimp ancestor. Discovered in Ethiopia, the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus is the earliest hominid for which scientists have found a nearly complete skeleton. In 2009, researchers unveiled an assessment of the species’ bones. Based on what they saw, they gave the human-chimp ancestor a complete makeover.

Before then, many scientists thought hominids descended from a tree-swinging ape that walked on its knuckles when it visited the forest floor, just like modern chimps and gorillas. But aspects of A. ramidus’ hands, feet, spine, hips and limbs indicate that the species must have instead originated from an ape that was quite monkeylike. Rather than hanging from tree limbs, the ancestors of hominids (and therefore chimps) probably walked on all fours on the tops of tree branches, C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University in Ohio and colleagues proposed.

That assessment implies that chimpanzees and gorillas independently evolved their tree-swinging ways. Lovejoy’s team suggests this kind of arboreal behavior arose in both apes because they increasingly relied on fruits and leaves in the treetops while human ancestors depended more on terrestrial foods. Eventually, as forests thinned out in Africa, knuckle-walking emerged in both gorilla and chimp lineages as a way for the tree-climbers to travel between patches of forest.

Not all anthropologists agree with this analysis of A. ramidus, or even that the species was a hominid. But the study does highlight that chimpanzees aren’t living fossils. That doesn’t mean that studying chimps won’t shed light on our evolutionary history; it just means that researchers shouldn’t think of the apes as direct portals to the past.

This article was written by a journalist,
Erin Wayman is a science and human evolution blogger for Hominid Hunting. She has M.As in biological anthropology and science writing.
Read more: Articles by Erin Wayman | Smithsonian

...but it does highlight the point I want to make.
Unfortunately I still have to split the post.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I understand science to work in a way different to how it is being used in relation to the theory of evolution, and a few other theories.
For example, we all know that children resemble their parents. This is a fact we observe.
Gregor Mendel came along and showed us how that works. No guesswork was involves. We could actually see it at work.

This is what I consider true and good science.
However, when science becomes a means of extrapolating back into the past, to tell a story they can't confirm, but can only speculate, and assume, and clearly it has been demonstrated that they are often wrong, why should anyone insist that people have that kind of faith?
Isn't that a form of proselytizing one faith as opposed to another?

The 600+ scientists that oppose Darwinism, and have identified it for what is is, have given their reasons against it, and their efforts to educate the masses, are having success in helping people use reason to clearly see that there are other ways of interpreting the evidence which many accept has a more structured and solid support.

A few individuals whom others wrongly accuse of haven s religious agenda, were known atheist Anthony Flew, and recently Günter Bechly.

I don't know these persons are stupid or wicked, as Dawkins states. Do you? I personally think it's just a defense mechanism.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I know that you have your reasons for believing in a theory, that doesn't have enough evidence to prove it, and I understand why you believe it.

I know that you have your reasons for believing in a god and a creation myth that doesn't have any supporting evidence, and I understand why you believe it.

Why do you ask for proof regarding our views when you refuse to acknowledge that you have no evidence to support your views?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
600+ scientists that oppose Darwinism

https://phys.org/news/2006-06-scientists-oppose-darwin-theory.html
The Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., says the statement being disbursed by the Internet reads, in part: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

The list of signatories reportedly includes scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, Russia and the United States.


The Discovery Institute is a conservative Christian think tank founded in 1990 which has been promoting teaching of intelligent design in schools.​


Wow, did you really dredge up that old piece of misinformation?

Have you seen the list? I have, years ago. Do you know how many of the "scientists" listed have degrees in biological sciences or paleontology or any of the sciences involved with evolution? Not very many. I do remember seeing a scattering of astronomers.

Given that there are over 20,000,000 scientists in the world 600 is not very many. In case you can't use a calculator that comes out to 003%.

it's really sad that you bother posting such nonsense Do you really believe it supports your argument in any way?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member

FAIL #1 - misrepresentation of the process of phylogenetic tree reconstruction


The data was used to PRODUCE the trees - the trees are not 'drawn up' first. You really are this clueless about the evidence that you imply sufficient knowledge of to dismiss?

The lineages of those 24 strains of mouse are KNOWN. The methods of reconstructing (not drawing, not guessing, not imagining) those trees were tested using genetic data to see whether these methods would reproduce the known relationships.

Guess you missed that, despite claiming "There is no need for interpretation here. It simply means what it says."

You probably should have stopped there.



FAIL #2 - whaaa? - misrepresentation of the content of the abstract for rhetorical purposes

"The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains..."

IOW, using protein coding genes in the analysis EXACTLY reproduced the known relationships (i.e., the species tree).



FAIL #3 - misrepresentation and confabulation of abstract content to disparage authors and prop up silly beliefs

There is no mention of any hypothesized phylogenetic tree because the phylogeny of the test taxon was KNOWN. The ACTUAL goal of the work was stated in the first sentence, which you are dutifully misrepresenting:

"Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees..."

There are 24 inbred strains of mice used for scientific research; for what I hope are obvious reasons, very precise data on the relationships of these mice is known; genetic data on these strains is also known; this paper sought to use the genetic data to test phylogenetic tree reconstruction algorithms.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp, and why do you feel compelled to try to denigrate and misrepresent the work?



FAIL #4 - misrepresentation of the conclusions

The abstract itself contradicts that rather foolish 'interpretation' -

"The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains..."

Get it? Protein coding genes accurately reproduced the known relationships.

As is the creationist's wont, you looked for an out, and saw this:

"...however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities."

That might be a problem is those loci were used in such studies, wouldn't it? Such loci accumulate lineage-specific mutations at high rates. The results of this (and other similar papers) showed actual scientists that the use of such loci should be undertaken with caution. Larger datasets, more expansive sequence data, etc., can overcome such obstacles. But how would you know, since you only ever cherry pick actual science and/or take creationist rhetoric at face value?



Why no quotation marks?

FAIL #5 - self-pwn

Do you even understand what any of that means?

If you did, I am pretty sure that you would not have linked or pasted from it - not to mention that since it came from a foreign journal, the translation was a bit wonky (you didn't notice that?).

That paper is explaining means of adjusting analytical criteria when using certain types of data.

Why did you think that paper in any way countered what I had presented, and why did you so blatantly misrepresent the paper I referred to?

Do you think that I do not understand this stuff any better than you?

You could have taken the honest route, and just written "I do not understand, and therefore do not base my rejection of evolution on evidence or science. God did it, I believe it, and that is that, and I am a-scared of Hell, so I believe what my pastors order me to believe."


And Deeje thinks WE are 'condescending'....

A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a branching diagram or "tree" showing the inferred evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities—their phylogeny—based upon similarities and differences in their physical or genetic characteristics. The taxa joined together in the tree are implied to have descended from a common ancestor. Phylogenetic trees are central to the field of phylogenetics.


In a rooted phylogenetic tree, each node with descendants represents the inferred most recent common ancestor of the descendants, and the edge lengths in some trees may be interpreted as time estimates. Each node is called a taxonomic unit. Internal nodes are generally called hypothetical taxonomic units, as they cannot be directly observed. Trees are useful in fields of biology such as bioinformatics, systematics, and phylogenetic comparative methods.


Unrooted trees illustrate only the relatedness of the leaf nodes and do not require the ancestral root to be known or inferred.


Diagram
n.

A drawing intended to explain how something works; a drawing showing the relation between the parts
v.
Make a schematic or technical drawing that shows interactions among variables or how something is constructed

History

The idea of a "tree of life" arose from ancient notions of a ladder-like progression from lower to higher forms of life (such as in the Great Chain of Being). Early representations of "branching" phylogenetic trees include a "paleontological chart" showing the geological relationships among plants and animals in the book Elementary Geology, by Edward Hitchcock (first edition: 1840).


Charles Darwin (1859) also produced one of the first illustrations and crucially popularized the notion of an evolutionary "tree" in his seminal book The Origin of Species. Over a century later, evolutionary biologists still use tree diagrams to depict evolution because such diagrams effectively convey the concept that speciation occurs through the adaptive and semirandom splitting of lineages. Over time, species classification has become less static and more dynamic.

Did the trees exist before this experiment with the mice? :rolleyes:
Is the phylogenetic tree a hypothesis?
The family tree

By studying inherited species' characteristics and other historical evidence, we can reconstruct evolutionary relationships and represent them on a "family tree," called a phylogeny.

This tree, like all phylogenetic trees, is a hypothesisabout the relationships among organisms. It illustrates the idea that all of life is related and can be divided into three major clades...

The tree is supported by many lines of evidence, but it is probably not flawless. Scientists constantly reevaluate hypotheses and compare them to new evidence. As scientists gather even more data, they may revise these particular hypotheses, rearranging some of the branches on the tree.

When gene copies are sampled from various species, the resulting gene tree might disagree with the containing species tree. The primary causes of gene tree and species tree discord include incomplete lineage sorting, horizontal gene transfer, and gene duplication and loss. Each of these events yields a different parsimony criterion for inferring the (containing) species tree from gene trees. With incomplete lineage sorting, species tree inference is to find the tree minimizing extra gene lineages that had to coexist along species lineages; with gene duplication, it becomes to find the tree minimizing gene duplications and/or losses.

What exactly is the point you are making?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
What is to accept?

I would say "What middle eastern cult does NOT claim that those that do not follow it are wrong? "

I would then ask them about Hosea 13:16 "their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." and ask why they worship so bloodthirsty a thug.
Three questions :
What's a middle aged cult?
Did you miss this? Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God."
Hosea 14 O Israel, return unto the LORD thy God; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity.
2 Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.
Does a bloodthirsty individual offer wicked people deserving death many many opportunities to turn from their corrupt ways, and then freely forgive them and take care of them even though they are still not deserving that care?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
And it seems that the child of only one of those sets of parents grew up to murder George Till. The child of only one of those sets of parents grew up to plant a bomb at the Atlanta Olympics. The child of only one of those sets of parents grew up to anoint Trump as having been chosen by God - a twice divorced serial adulterer and worshiper of money.


"And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord."
I wonder why many people knew he was a lying atheist, but you believe his propaganda.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
My best guess is because they are wrong - because there is no intelligent designer. That's probably also why there is no evidence for Bigfoot.
Guessing? Hmm.


Either you haven't looked or haven't seen. The evidence is there, and it's overwhelming. Have you read about human chromosome 2?
More guesswork?


ID is considered pseudoscience not just by the scientific community, but the American court system since Dover.
There is a reason of course, but it doesn't seem a valid one.


If you are alive, you are either an animal, a plant, fungus, protozoan (protist), or a bacterium (monera). Pick one.
Human being. Am I dead now?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Yes. An argument from incredulity basically states that the arguer doesn't believe that a particular thing is true or possible, and so declares it as such, as when a creationist thinks that all of the pretty flowers and animals on earth couldn't possibly exist without an intelligent designer, because he or she simply can't imagine how that could happen, so it didn't.

That's a logical error.
Thanks. Then that's not the ID argument.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Thanks. Then that's not the ID argument.
Steven Meyer debate with Lawrence Krauss (intelligent design vs evolution) debate revealed the ID argument is one argument only which is life is too well designed to be natural. - That argument is not science it is looking at a complex system without understanding the slow steps in the process. Some seeing a computer without seeing the steps leading to it could come up with the intuitive belief that no person could create such a complex devise on their own that god created computers. There is no attempt provide evidence of how a god created the genetic code there is only the statements only god could create such a design - it is too complex to be natural.
This is the worst form of argument. It is not an attempt to prove ID but to rather make the assertion that if something is complex it could not form from the natural world so a god or goddess had to come in and make it as well as direct it. Again no evidence but rather using the incredible research effort of so many scientist to learn about the natural processes which are gradually proving how evolution did develop and say here are some yet to be fully explained gaps so therefore it cant be true. This is a desperate argument when they know there is no evidence of the Intelligent designer starting life or directing the direction of life.
The research to show how the intelligent designer started life does not exist. If they can finally show the positive evidence of an intelligent designer and not just because the system is complex since simple to complex can be explained with our current understanding of genetics. Then the next question the ID scientist will need to figure out is which god or goddess did the intelligent design. Was it Odin, Athena, Morrigan, Dagda (the good god - possible good choice since Dagda is good), Danu, Thor, and a long list of others to chose from. Might be embarrassing if Danu is the true Intelligent Designer since everything would have to change from god to goddess.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
Thanks. Then that's not the ID argument.
The argument of ID has its problems which I have not heard clear answers to. 1. As I just mentioned which god or goddess - (personally going for Danu) was the goddess or god of Intelligent Design can if they can produce the evidence. 2. Did the goddess or god just drop DNA on the earth to let life start of was a single celled organism at first or multicellular organism? 3. Is the goddess or god continuously adjusting the DNA or just checking in every now and then to make adjustments? 4. Did the goddess or god place fossil record as a hoax or test and created all life as it is now with no precursors. 5. Finally how do we know man was the real intention of the design and not some other life form. What proof do we really have that man is the special one. Maybe its actually the dolphin. They are certainty intelligent and are not destroying the world so maybe they are the most like a god or goddess.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
I understand science to work in a way different to how it is being used in relation to the theory of evolution, and a few other theories.
For example, we all know that children resemble their parents. This is a fact we observe.
Gregor Mendel came along and showed us how that works. No guesswork was involves. We could actually see it at work.

This is what I consider true and good science.
However, when science becomes a means of extrapolating back into the past, to tell a story they can't confirm, but can only speculate, and assume, and clearly it has been demonstrated that they are often wrong, why should anyone insist that people have that kind of faith?
Isn't that a form of proselytizing one faith as opposed to another?

The 600+ scientists that oppose Darwinism, and have identified it for what is is, have given their reasons against it, and their efforts to educate the masses, are having success in helping people use reason to clearly see that there are other ways of interpreting the evidence which many accept has a more structured and solid support.

A few individuals whom others wrongly accuse of haven s religious agenda, were known atheist Anthony Flew, and recently Günter Bechly.

I don't know these persons are stupid or wicked, as Dawkins states. Do you? I personally think it's just a defense mechanism.


What exactly was the question posed to these 600+ scientists;

"We are sceptical of claims for the ability of Random Mutation and Natural Selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of evidence for Darwinian Theory should be encouraged.". https://dissentfromdarwin.org/

Where do these scientist say that they disagree with the basic Theory of Evolution(not simply parts of it)? Do they agree that we have all evolved from less complex organisms, to become more complex organisms? Do they agree that multicellular organisms came from unicellular organisms? Also, do the agree that all life is phylogenetically linked? What are some of the explanations that these scientist give, as to why they are opposed to the Theory of Evolution? I would even agree that, "Careful examination of evidence for Darwinian Theory should be encouraged". Do you think that careful examination should NOT be encouraged? Do these same scientist say that they believe in Intelligent Design? Do any of these scientist say that the ToE is wrong, and why?

Because of our brain's ability to processes and compartmentalize information, intelligence does not equate to being rational. Why do many intelligent people join cults, or believe in all manner of things imaginary and ridiculous? If every scientist in the world completely dismissed Evolution, you would still need to present your own evidence to support your claims for ID. It is only arrogance and self-deception, to think that myths and superstitions would personally threaten any critical thinker.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
https://phys.org/news/2006-06-scientists-oppose-darwin-theory.html
The Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., says the statement being disbursed by the Internet reads, in part: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

The list of signatories reportedly includes scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, Russia and the United States.


The Discovery Institute is a conservative Christian think tank founded in 1990 which has been promoting teaching of intelligent design in schools.​


Wow, did you really dredge up that old piece of misinformation?

Have you seen the list? I have, years ago. Do you know how many of the "scientists" listed have degrees in biological sciences or paleontology or any of the sciences involved with evolution? Not very many. I do remember seeing a scattering of astronomers.

Given that there are over 20,000,000 scientists in the world 600 is not very many. In case you can't use a calculator that comes out to 003%.

it's really sad that you bother posting such nonsense Do you really believe it supports your argument in any way?

Sorry, I read your post, after posting mine. Well said.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I know that you have your reasons for believing in a theory, that doesn't have enough evidence to prove it, and I understand why you believe it.
One does not "believe" in a scientific theory any more than one believes in Earth having a moon. So, here's the actual definition with some explanation:

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope...
-- Scientific theory - Wikipedia

Rather. Could it be that there is no supportive evidence for evolution, other than what is assumed, based on three premises - 1. a proposition; 2. what is being looked for; 3. natural science.
Absolutely false as it is considered one of the prime bases for the field of biology. Even common sense should tell one this as all material objects appear to change (evolve) over time and genes are material objects.

If indeed there was supportive evidence, then everyone should agree, don't you think?
No, because some use religion as a set of blinders rather that of enlightenment.

I experienced that for myself as I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught us to not accept the science on this and some other things, and I left that church after concluding my undergrad and grad degrees in anthropology when it became painfully aware to me that I and others in that church were being misled. Fortunately, many churches do not teach this use of blinders, including the one I converted to.

Any church that teaches its congregants to turn a blind eye to basic science must be considered bogus because the Truth cannot be relative. The belief in the Creation accounts as somehow being literal history is so nonsensical that one really has to be quite ignorant about theology in order to conclude that this is the only option. The Creation accounts, taken literally, simply are not even remotely logical based on what we now know, especially since we're quite certain at this time that they were designed to teach basic Jewish theology through the use of allegory-- basically what appears to be a reworked Babylonian narrative so as to reflect basic Jewish teachings.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
THIS is why it took you so long to reply? You had to search and search for some keyword-based quotes that you thought had relevance??

LOL!!!
A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a branching diagram or "tree" showing the inferred evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities—their phylogeny—based upon similarities and differences in their physical or genetic characteristics. The taxa joined together in the tree are implied to have descended from a common ancestor. Phylogenetic trees are central to the field of phylogenetics.


In a rooted phylogenetic tree, each node with descendants represents the inferred most recent common ancestor of the descendants, and the edge lengths in some trees may be interpreted as time estimates. Each node is called a taxonomic unit. Internal nodes are generally called hypothetical taxonomic units, as they cannot be directly observed. Trees are useful in fields of biology such as bioinformatics, systematics, and phylogenetic comparative methods.


Unrooted trees illustrate only the relatedness of the leaf nodes and do not require the ancestral root to be known or inferred.

Which of these diversions address your FAILURES that I documented here?

Diagram
n.

A drawing intended to explain how something works; a drawing showing the relation between the parts
v.
Make a schematic or technical drawing that shows interactions among variables or how something is constructed

Was that supposed to address your documented FAILURE when you foolishly and ignorantly wrote:


""By looking at this data - data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice, we can examine it along with the trees we drew up, and see what they can tell us."

Surely, you do not actually think the trees are drawn up BEFORE examining the data? Are you really THAT uninformed?

Did you actually think that defining the word "drawing" would rescue your ignorance?

- snip irrelevant copy-pasted Wiki stuff -
Did the trees exist before this experiment with the mice? :rolleyes:
Not this particular tree, no...

I'm betting you thought that was a GOTCHA!, didn't you?

:rolleyes:
Is the phylogenetic tree a hypothesis?
The family tree

By studying inherited species' characteristics and other historical evidence, we can reconstruct evolutionary relationships and represent them on a "family tree," called a phylogeny.

This tree, like all phylogenetic trees, is a hypothesisabout the relationships among organisms. It illustrates the idea that all of life is related and can be divided into three major clades...

I guess this was supposed to rebut this sentence of mine:

"There is no mention of any hypothesized phylogenetic tree because the phylogeny of the test taxon was KNOWN."

I hope that be my pasting my sentence again for you shows how you failed yet again.

But I doubt it will actually sink in...

The tree is supported by many lines of evidence, but it is probably not flawless. Scientists constantly reevaluate hypotheses and compare them to new evidence. As scientists gather even more data, they may revise these particular hypotheses, rearranging some of the branches on the tree.
So I guess you felt it OK to ignore and leave out this sentence, just before where you decided to copy-paste:

"The phylogeny you see below represents the basic relationships that tie all life on Earth together.
dot_clear.gif
"

All that crap you pasted was about THAT tree.


DUH.
When gene copies are sampled from various species, the resulting gene tree might disagree with the containing species tree. The primary causes of gene tree and species tree discord include incomplete lineage sorting, horizontal gene transfer, and gene duplication and loss. Each of these events yields a different parsimony criterion for inferring the (containing) species tree from gene trees. With incomplete lineage sorting, species tree inference is to find the tree minimizing extra gene lineages that had to coexist along species lineages; with gene duplication, it becomes to find the tree minimizing gene duplications and/or losses.

What about it? Was the Atchley paper examining gene copies? No. Just more confusion and desperation on your part.


Please explain the relevance of THAT to this:

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

What exactly is the point you are making?
I think you made my point - again - for me.

The point is that you do not understand this material at all. But, in your zeal to prop up your religion, you pretend that you do. And and in your Dunning-Kruger effect pretense, you end up making a bigger and bigger fool of yourself.

You really should have stopped when I pointed out all of your failures in the previous exchange. Did you actually think that a few minutes on Google would save your embarrassment?

What goes through the head of folks like you?
 
Last edited:

tas8831

Well-Known Member
What is to accept?

I would say "What middle eastern cult does NOT claim that those that do not follow it are wrong? "

I would then ask them about Hosea 13:16 "their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." and ask why they worship so bloodthirsty a thug.
Three questions :
What's a middle aged cult?

Three answers:

Is that question a demonstration of the care with which you read that which you then pretend to rebut? No wonder your replies are nonsense and easily demolished.

ANSWER: I wrote "middle eastern cult". Duh.
ANSWER: No, I saw it.
Does a bloodthirsty individual offer wicked people deserving death many many opportunities to turn from their corrupt ways, and then freely forgive them and take care of them even though they are still not deserving that care?
ANSWER: Does an all loving GOD offer such opportunities to FETUSES and CHILDREN and then slaughter them anyway?

Again, you worship that thing? A fetus-killing thug who KILLS those that He cannot convince to worship him under fear of death?
 
Top