|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 12/02/2009 : 05:49:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Perfectly parroted from Wikipedia, but you show nothing to indicate you understand the meaning of what you just copied-and-pasted from wiki.
Besides, copy-and-paste from another source verbatim without providing the source (like a link) is considered copyright violation, and stealing.
At least tell us where you copy from, and some way for us to tell what you copied from elsewhere and what words are truly your own.
Edited for spelling.
|
I do not have time to spell out for you in my own words, besides this wiki's explanation would carry more weight with you guys than anything i would say.
|
Nice try, buy you've dodged the question about you really understanding what it means. I don't think you've convinced anyone here that you can do more than copy-and-paste, while remaining ignorant on how to apply the knowledge.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 07:07:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
You didn't lie about your age being 13+ when you registered? |
Actually, if you don't put in a birthday at registration, the software stupidly assumes that your registration date is your birthday and that you're 13.
|
I was referring to his childish taunts. Made me think he was 12yrs or maybe less.
|
Im not one of those ppl who is concerned by these type of taunts. Continue if you wish. |
Are you intentionally misunderstanding me, or can't you help yourself?
| What gets my goat though is being accused of lying. |
That's what happens when you repeat something that someone else has lied about.
For example: AiG lies about 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
You repeat what AiG said, but without telling us that you're only forwarding what AiG said. We then believe that you're telling us this lie, when it actually was a lie-by-proxy.
If you had only told us that you got this information about 2nd LoT from AiG (simply by indicating so by referencing your source) then we could explain to you that you and/or AiG is wrong, and we could explain to you why that is.
| If you think i lie then keep it to yourself please because ill ignore you if you continue. |
The point of telling someone is lying is to let them know we're on his game, so that he realise he can drop the pretence.
You say that you understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. This is a lie, because many of us actually know how it works and is supposed to be applied.
There is no point in keep pretending, the discussion will not move forward until you acknowledge this fact that you've got the application of the 2nd LoT wrong.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 07:19:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
It is equally plausible that these fossils are the result of a global flood. |
I take it that you don't see a problem with this sort of reasoning...? It is true that ANY evidence could be in accordance with some sort of creation. Therefore, you seem to be arguing that anything could be evidence for creation. I.e. if X then creation. If not X, then creation.
| ill tear your “proven facts” TO PIECES JUST AS I HAVE FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS. No proof exists for evolution. None!!!! |
Because there can be no evidence for evolution? Because anything that can count as evidence for evolution could also be evidence for creation? Because you don't understand the first thing about evidence? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/02/2009 : 08:01:46 [Permalink]
|
| ill tear your “proven facts” TO PIECES JUST AS I HAVE FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS. No proof exists for evolution. None!!!! |
Talk's cheap, son. Takes money to buy good whiskey and sound evidence to tear apart scientific theory.
That said, this site has the straight skinny on the Laws of Thermodynamics:
ENTROPYLAW.COM
Foundations of Physics, Life and Cognition: Basic Texts, Reviews, Research Material
The law of entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, along with the first law of thermodynamics comprise the most fundamental laws of physics. Entropy (the subject of the second law) and energy (the subject of the first law) and their relationship are fundamental to an understanding not just of physics, but to life (biology, evolutionary theory, ecology), cognition (psychology). According to the old view, the second law was viewed as a 'law of disorder'. The major revolution in the last decade is the recognition of the "law of maximum entropy production" or "MEP" and with it an expanded view of thermodynamics showing that the spontaneous production of order from disorder is the expected consequence of basic laws. This site provides basic texts, articles, links, and references that take the reader from the classical views of thermodynamics in simple terms, to today's new and richer understanding.
|
There. Now forget all about the apologetics spewed forth by AiG, CMI, ICR, and the rest of the religious mendicants -- those who would tell you fairy stories and beg to dip into your pocketbook.
You will note that I gave solid reference that anyone with a bone to pick with me can check out. It's easy and adds to the credibility of the statement.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 09:49:37 [Permalink]
|
Matt36:
Hi Kil,You say "very strong evidence that they evoloved" i challence you to present this "VERY STRONG EVIDENCE". |
I have. You are being purposely obtuse. Your game plan is to wave away the evidence and then keep asking for evidence. Every theory must be predictive. The ToE is highly predictive. I have focused on the area of fossils, but the ToE if highly predictive in other areas too.
Matt36:
yeah God may have put them exactly where scientists expected them to be but equally he could have made them as seperate species as we expect them to be. No fors, no against s here sorry. |
A couple things jump to mind. One is that God wants us to accept the ToE because he arranged the fossils to give us the appearance that life evolved. So God is a jokester? The other thing is that you are now thinking up reasons for why the evidence that does support evolution may be incorrect. That's you acknowledging that the evidence exists, Matt, even while you think up reasons to wave it away.
Matt36:
Scientists words against mine, no facts or proofs either way. |
Wrong. What predictions can you make about where to look for specific fossils? And there is also the “fact” of those fossils both existing and being where they should be. The scientist’s word against yours? You offer pretty much nothing but your belief, which will not lead to any discoveries at all, while scientists dig up bones exactly where they should be found, if the ToE is correct, and continue to make other discoveries that support evolution and have been doing so for over 150 years now. Your insistence about there being no facts, either way, is really just your hand waving away the evidence. What a prideful arrogance you have to think that your opinion is equal to the findings of the real experts in the field. But again, unless you maintain that closed mind of yours, you will be in danger of accepting evolution. And you can’t go there. (I have noticed a softening in your tone. Your plan was to embarrass us with your knowledge. How's that going?)
Matt36:
No proof that there wasn't a global flood, no proof that the mountains were covered in water millions of years ago. Like i said, some evolutionary theories equally fit into creation. I named just two but there ios lots lots more. |
Well, here’s the deal. Scientists pretty much know how every mountain range on the planet was formed. They even know where and why mountains that once existed are now underwater. Take any range and it can be explained by one geological force or another. It’s not like they are doing a whole lot of guessing anymore.
And they know that there was no world wide flood. They are not speculating about that. They know it. You, on the other hand, parade your ignorance about the forces of nature with statements like the above as though you think that your opinion is equal the expert knowledge of scientists. I was under the impression that humility is a virtue.
So, at what moment did you realize that you were more expert in so many areas of science than the overwhelming consensus of actual scientists are? Was it before or after reading all of that creationist literature?
Further reading: Fundamentalists Hate Noah's Ark
I'm going to point out, somewhat reluctantly, that there are Christians who work as evolutionary biologists and in related fields. They have managed to keep their faith in God while accepting the evidence for evolution. The false dichotomy is that this is an either or proposition. It isn't. Of course, that opens up another kettle of fish, from a skeptics point of view, but to my thinking, it also demonstrates how powerful the evidence for evolution really is.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 09:59:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Im not one of those ppl who is concerned by these type of taunts. Continue if you wish. What gets my goat though is being accused of lying. If you think i lie then keep it to yourself please because ill ignore you if you continue. Dave, i do not wish to ignore you as you are one who i can actually hold a conversation with. Most evolutionists in the past i have spoken with will not because they cannot discuss with me. I value the discussion here, so Dave, please lay off the accusations if you wish to be included in the conversation. If you are slightly angry with me because you think i singled you out, then dont be. You were first to respond to me so you were first to get a reply. |
Matt, if you don't like the accusations, then stop engaging in the behavior.
You posted quotes from Wikipedia, and then summed up those quotes in your own words with the opposite meaning of what was plainly written on those pages.
You posted a quote from Rick Groleau, leaving out the other sentences Groleau wrote in the same paragraph which contradict the idea you were trying to support with that quote.
What would you call such behavior, if not lying?
Your recent assertions regarding DNA error correction, chromosomal duplication, "progress" in evolution and the definition of "transitional" are false, as well, but since you didn't quote any sources for those, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and conclude that you're just parroting the lies that you've been told.
Of course, it doesn't matter if you're making up stuff on your own or just repeating lies that others have told you. The Ninth Commandment makes no distinction between the two, and so it implies that Christians have a moral obligation to verify the truth of the things they are told before they repeat them. You have, in no uncertain terms, failed in this duty. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 10:45:14 [Permalink]
|
Matt36.....
Exactly like an evangelical preacher, you make dogmatic claims that are all over the map of reality, but you offer absolutely no substantiation for your claims. Many well informed and highly educated members of this Forum have responded to your pietistic proclamations that are made without any basis other than your own opinion. Those responding to you have given extensive references and documentation of their commentary, yet you continue to simply state dogmatic religious opinions as though they were fact.
You are obviously a severely deluded religious fanatic who has no interest in proof or tested fact. Evolution is as much of a demonstrated scientific reality as are the laws of physics. Neither were discovered by proclamations of religious opinion from a pulpit, which is exactly what "creationism" is.
You have been terribly misled by your fanatical religious masters. They have persuaded you that the theological idiocy that they embrace is literally "gospel"--- absolute truth. Truth is only discovered by dedicated scientific investigation, not by "Faith" or "Belief".
I do not seek to dissuade you from your delusions. In your current embryonic condition of ignorance, that is not possible. But, at the very least, think of the possibility of questioning the religious dogma that you have been taught and consider examining the enormous evidence for evolution that has been painstakingly amassed, verified, and annotated by thousands of scientists over many, many years. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 11:33:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
...embryonic condition of ignorance... |
Wow, an embryo that's been around "FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS." That must be some kind of record.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 11:37:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Perfectly parroted from Wikipedia, but you show nothing to indicate you understand the meaning of what you just copied-and-pasted from wiki.
Besides, copy-and-paste from another source verbatim without providing the source (like a link) is considered copyright violation, and stealing.
At least tell us where you copy from, and some way for us to tell what you copied from elsewhere and what words are truly your own.
Edited for spelling.
|
I do not have time to spell out for you in my own words, besides this wiki's explanation would carry more weight with you guys than anything i would say.
|
I find it offensive that you assume we don't know anything about it, but have to pointed to wikipedia. As if we can't figure out ourselves where to read about something we are unfamiliar with. On the other hand, you're telling big tales about a lot of things which contradict our knowledge on the subject. In those matters, we do want you to provide links to your sources, so we can check for ourselves that you're not just making shit up as you go along. Unfortunately, creationists are famous for making shit up as they go along, and you've repeated a lot of that shit so you must understand we are skeptical about your honesty, or at least your source of information. You obviously haven't taken either Biology 101, Science 101, or Physics 101.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 11:52:52 [Permalink]
|
| The utter lack of comprehension is mind numbing. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 12:20:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method |
True.
| and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. |
False.
Before I can even start contemplating such a notion, you'll need to explain why such a repair-process falsifies evolutionary theories. Even the repair-process isn't perfect, and mutations happens on a fairly regular basis.
| The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed. |
False.
As I said above, mutations still happens, despite there being a repair-process.
Edited to add: Also, the DNA doesn't attempt to change. Like it had its own free will or something... It's an object subjected to outside forces that causes changes, through many different ways.
| There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. |
False.
Actually, some species of insects have individuals (ex. male bees) are monoploids. They have half the chromosomes as the females. Polyploids are not uncommon in plants.
Edit: Dude has mentioned several examples in an earlier post. Read it. Read the links.
| The chromosome count within each species is fixed. |
Somewhat true.
At least if you discount monoploids. Once the chromosome number change, you can say, by definition we have a new species. Edited to add: Also, you have to consider the norm within the population. Down's Syndrome are examples of exceptions to the rule.
| This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. |
Red herring.
Even with the same number of chromosomes, it is unlikely that two different species can mate successfully. How do you define success anyway? A donkey and a horse are two separate species, still they can produce offspring.
| Man could not evolve from a monkey. |
LMFAO!
Major fail. No evolutionist would actually says man evolved from a monkey, because that would be wrong. If you have proof of the contrary, then produce evidence.
| Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. |
Partly true.
As I said above: the very instant the chromosome count changed, we would by definition have a new species. But this actually happened. The common ancestor of chimpanzee and Man had 48 pairs of chromosomes. At some point in the past, two chromosomes fused together into one, one end attached to another end. The evidence is in the DNA where scientists can clearly identify the two corresponding chimp chromosomes and match them against the fused human counterpart. Also, the starting point and the end point of any chromosomes are very unique, and that's how the fusing point on the human chromosome was identified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project#Genes_of_the_Chromosome_2_fusion_site
| If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. |
True.
But that's just half the truth. The number of chromosomes can also change by fission (one breaking into two separate chromosomes) and fusion (as with human chromosome #2). Such organisms don't die out automatically, but can survive.
Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.
|
False.
As per previous arguments. We have for example the London Subway Mosquito which is a separate species from the surface-dwelling mosquito from which it originated. They cannot mate with each-other anymore.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 12/02/2009 13:01:18 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 12:44:59 [Permalink]
|
Sorry I've missed so much! Though I would like to respond to this from matt: MarfKnox, said,
See, I took it like this: Gravity is a theory, but it is based on observed facts such as the fact that apples consistently fall from trees, etc. So an example of a fact that supports evolution would be that the flu virus mutates every season - which is observable evolution. |
Virus's have always evolved. they have been designed this way. |
Heh - that's what Christians and other theists who accept evolution say about all life on earth.
| This is not Darwinian evolution as there is no transition of species even after long periods. |
There are plenty and thousands of scientific research papers and books have been written about them.
Also, why there are so many species who can produce offspring but not viable offspring? (Ex: the mule)
| Creationists do not deny micro evolution. Macro evolution is an entirely different concept altogether |
No, it isn't. The only fundamental difference is that one takes place over a short amount of time while the other takes place over thousands of years. They are the same basic concept and both can include speciation (a new species arising.) | and has never been observed or recorded to the record of fossils. |
Since the only fundamental difference is the amount of time, humans would have to live thousands of years to observe macroevolution. So I'd say it is pretty unfair to demand that it be observed to be proven true. There are many other kinds of evidence that can do the job.
| There is NO proof of evolution whatso ever and if it was true the fossil record would have BILLIONS of examples of it. |
Given how most living things degrade and are not likely to die under circumstances which will produce a fossil that will last thousands, much less millions of years, why would there be "BILLIONS" of them?
| All life found in the oldest layers of the earth appear exactly the same as their modern example in younger strata. |
Oh, like how trilobites are found in all layers? Oh, wait, no, they're only found in the Cambrian layers.
This sort of language muddles the discussion because it implies that there are end species and then species in between called transitions, when the reality is that we're all transitions as much as we're end species. But for the sake of argument, if we say that modern humans evolved from apes (not the apes of today, of course, but from some common ancestor who would have been biologically classified as an "ape") there are plenty of transitional forms with both ape-like and human-like features, such as the various species in the Australopithecus genus, and later Homo habilis and Homo erectus.
| Transitions paraded as transitions have been proven as fraudulent, neanderthals have shown to be no different in DNA to modern man. |
Source? All the research I can finds says that DNA studies of Neanderthal bones show them to have 99.5-99.9% of DNA in common. That's not identical. And while it might not seem like a big difference, I might remind you that chimps and humans DNA is 98.5% identical. According to the fossil record, chimps and human diverged 7 million years ago, while Neanderthals and humans diverged about only half a million years ago, so the percentage of DNA differences seems about right.
| Any other non fraudulent one are proof of nothing as it easily possible that they are extinct species. Vestigial organs of humans were once thought of by evolutionists as left over organs from the evolutionary process. Modern medical doctors have now proven this as a wannabe theory. |
That's hardly the consensus among doctors and biologists. Vestigial organs might still have some use, but the point is that they've lost almost all their original use. Some vestigial organs eventually evolve to take on an entirely new function over time which is equally useful in the new environment.
| They have now proven to have use, all of them. |
Really? Then I want my wisdom teeth back!
And incidentally, I took interest in evolutionary theory as a kid, long before I ever heard of Richard Dawkins. Read a lot of books on human evolution and minored in human evolution in college. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 12/02/2009 12:46:40 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 12:47:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Evolution is as much of a demonstrated scientific reality as are the laws of physics. |
Actually, even more so.
We know how DNA mutates to produce new species. But more than that: we know why it happens.
We know the law of gravity. We have a scientific theory about its workings, but we still don't know how or why matter aquire mass. Or why only some particles do and others don't.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 13:13:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Hi H Humbert, no i dont think they didnt notice at all. i think they know full well but because it fly's in the face of evolutionary theory they reject it or ignore it. Scientists of the larger proportion are just like you guys. Die hard evolutionists who will not accept any other theory whether its scientific or not. |
Why would they be committed to evolution if the evidence did not support it? What's their motivation for lying?
At the end of the day, Humbert, the Dna Scientists are correct in saying this or they are not. If they are correct, and all data says they are, then evolution has a problem doesn't it.
|
Except DNA scientists aren't saying this. You're saying this and then claiming DNA scientists are hiding this from the public. All of them from all over the world. Ludicrous. Of course, this begs the question, if they are desperately trying to cover up the evidence that evolution is impossible, how were you able to find out so easily?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/02/2009 13:14:23 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 14:53:54 [Permalink]
|
| Welp. This page should keep Matt36 busy for a while... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Dennett answers NY Times on Dawkins’ book
Topic Locked
