Freethinker Posted May 3, 2004 Report Posted May 3, 2004 Originally posted by: tinbud Originally posted by: Tormod Do you even *know* what the background microwave radiation is? Then you would know that a) it is considered to be the remnant echo of the big bang B) it comes from all directions c) the lack of smoothness is what is being studied. It is generally believed that the "spots" in the background radiation (which are due to extremely small variations in temperature) is what made structures like galaxies and clusters form quite early in the universe. Originally posted by: Freethinker So you can cut and paste. Please show us enough detail from these sources that show that as is usually the case, they are not taken completely out of context or represent unproven minority opinions. rather than actual ACCEPT refutation of the OVERWHELMINGLY accepted assertion of the background radiation being a perfect proof of the BB. These statements don't sound like proof. It is considered to be? Of course it is considered to be, it is circular logic. Ewe, he is trying to use new phrases! Very good! Now learn what they actually MEAN! There is NOTHING circular about Science not being a philosophy that claims absolute knowledge. Science likes to state that Theories are NEVER proven 100% and but can be disproven 100% at any point. Thus a scientist (just like a Liberal) will typically include modifiers in their presentations that show a less than absolute knowledge stance. "As we currently understand it...". "The most accurate explanation currently is...", "As far as we know...". These show the HONESTY and intellectual integrity of Science (and Liberalism). The big bang occurred. We find microwave radiation. It must come from the big bang. Therefore the big bang occurred. OK, either you failed to READ or failed to COMPREHEND what I posted. Which is it? I can't convince anyone that what I believe is true. YES, there are those of us that REQUIRE PROOF. We NEED to be "convinced" by FACTS and REASON. We do not sell out our live's philosophy so cheaply. By admitting you " can't convince anyone", you are acknowledging that you KNOW you do not have the FACTS, the PROOF needed. No suprise there at all. Well, I am occasionally suprised that Christians will at least admit it. My guess is that now that you see the logical consequences of your statement you will try to retract it. I didn't use to have faith in God. When I accepted Christ, my life changed. I can't explain the way He has blessed me. The same is heard from people addicted to anything.
IrishEyes Posted May 3, 2004 Report Posted May 3, 2004 The same is heard from people addicted to anything. Oh come on...that was just a little bit low!
tinbud Posted May 4, 2004 Report Posted May 4, 2004 Originally posted by: FreethinkerBut this is not only completely erroneous, it contradicts the 1st paragraph. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These two don't contradict one another. Unless you mean one uses the word good and the other uses the word harmful. The first paragraph states what evolutionists accept as the process of natural selection. The second paragraph states why good mutations are unlikely. Erroneous? (cut and paste)Curiously enough, Darwin himself was one of the first to discount beneficial effects from rare changes he noted in species. He did not even include them in his theory. "He did not consider them important," says Maurice Caullery in his book Genetics and Heredity, "because they nearly always represented an obvious disadvantage from the point of view of the struggle for existence; consequently they would most likely be rapidly eliminated in the wild state by the operation of natural selection" (1964, p. 10, emphasis added). I know you want something more recent.Science writer Milton explains the problem: "The results of such copying errors are tragically familiar. In body cells, faulty replication shows itself as cancer. Sunlight's mutagenic (mutation-inducing) power causes skin cancer; the cigarette's mutagenic power causes lung cancer. In sexual cells, faulty reproduction of whole chromosome number 21 results in a child with Down's syndrome" (Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, 1997, p. 156). Originally posted by: FreethinkerTo state that nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them is absurd. Statistically nearly all mutations have no relevant effect at all. They fit with-in the bell curve. While the few benefitial ones will tend to improve the species and the negative ones will end at that generation The point is to examine the likelihood that random, beneficial mutations will occur. Originally posted by: FreethinkerIf these sources ever read NEW sources, they would know better. Such as how the lengths of beaks in birds generationally follow the tides in some sea birds. Getting longer and shorter during successive generations based on direct response to environmental conditions. This was covered in Darwin's "Origins". So if these sources would catch up to the 19th Century, they would be getting colser to today's knowledge. Is that what you call a mutation? That sounds more like my toenails getting long so I have to cut them off. Speaking of Darwin: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them" - Charles Darwin (William Federer, America's God and Country, 1996, p. 199). I know you probably have a canned answer for this but I'll ask anyway. Where are the transitional forms? Here is more cut and paste for emphasis. David Raup is a firm believer in evolution and a respected paleontologist (scientist who studies fossils) at the University of Chicago and the Field Museum. However, he admits that the fossil record has been misinterpreted if not outright mischaracterized. He writes: "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea
alexander Posted May 4, 2004 Report Posted May 4, 2004 Well, there is proof in a way. About a year back there was an article in subscribe.ru's newsletter about a Russian scientist that proved the existance of a point in space at which the energies of all the objects in the universe collide at one spot, by that prooving the possibility of God's existance.I tried searching online, but unfortunately could not find any information about the topic, sadly enough...
Freethinker Posted May 4, 2004 Report Posted May 4, 2004 You need to learn to break your responses up. Originally posted by: tinbudOriginally posted by: FreethinkerBut this is not only completely erroneous, it contradicts the 1st paragraph. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the "good" mutations and allows the others to pass away -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These two don't contradict one another. Unless you mean one uses the word good and the other uses the word harmful. The first paragraph states what evolutionists accept as the process of natural selection. The second paragraph states why good mutations are unlikely. 1) Evolutionists. Note how there is an attempt to demonize the issue by using name calling! We are not talking about SCIENTISTS! We are not talking about 99.5% of all SCIENTISTS that are DIRECTLY related to the field of biology, We are talking about those know nothing EVOLUTIONISTS! 2) SCIENTISTS, peer reviewed, qualified - virtually EVERY ONE OF THEM that have even the closest association with biology sciences agree that Evolution is the ONLY theory that comes close to explaining the diversity of life on earth. But calling them SCIENTISTS (as they actually ARE) does not allow them to be discredited as easily. Consider the specific example given:Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to beNatural selection is considered by scientists to beWhich would obviously be given more credence? This is the common thread for tinboy's whole approach. Probably not his own fault as all he seems capable of is parrotting typically uncredible sources that have no other way of supporting their religious agenda. So when we remove the straw man fallacy, we do see the contradiction they try to hide. Let's now look closer at the 2nd itemnearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience themWHO would make this statement? Are we to ASSUME it was SCIENTISTS? We are not supplied the first bit of evidence that this is a FACTUAL assertion. It is just something posted here, copied from sources that do not provide any vaid support for the assertion either. It requires a priori acceptance before there is ANY reason to accept it. So if we remove the attempt at bias set up by the construction of the two statements, if we set them up in the same manner, we get that Natural Selection uses GOOD mutations, compared to stating that for all intents and purposes, there are no GOOD mutations. Thus the contradiction become obvious. One specifically acknowledges the SCIENTIFIC community's acknowledgement of the existence of and common application of good mutations, the other claims they don't exist. Then we move on to trying to demonize and disprove EVOLUTION by attacking DARWINIAN Evolution. This is like trying to attack Physics by showing the failures of an exclusively Newtonian Physics. Oh them Newtonians!
Freethinker Posted May 4, 2004 Report Posted May 4, 2004 See how they can be broken into managable sections? Originally posted by: tinbudCuriously enough, Darwin himself... SEE! As I stated at the end of my last post, we move onto the attempt to build a straw man RE Darwinian Evolution as if itwas the ONLY form of Evolution being evaluated. Just like pretending to disprove Physics by claiming the Newtonian physics is the onlt physics. Speaking of Darwin: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them" - Charles Darwin (William Federer, America's God and Country, 1996, p. 199).David Raup is a firm believer in evolution and a respected paleontologist... He writes: "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is.... Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates... Harvard University paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould is perhaps today's best-known popular writer on evolution. An ardent evolutionist, he collaborated with Professor Eldredge in proposing alternatives to the traditional view of Darwinism. Like Eldredge, he recognizes that the fossil record fundamentally conflicts with Darwin's idea of gradualism. Thus we see the fallacious attempt to disproven EVOLUTION by claiming that even them idiot "Evolutionists" don't even believe in Evolution because Darwin was not 100% correct! So they scour ever text, every speech by every person they can find anywhere that might suggest an attempt to open dialog about Evolution. This as if science questioning science is something unusual. When in fact it is the process that makes science as accurate as it is. Let's consider the example tinboy supplies. was one of the first to discount beneficial effects from rare changes he noted in species. He did not even include them in his theory. "He did not consider them important," says Maurice Caullery in his book Genetics and Heredity, "because they nearly always represented an obvious disadvantage from the point of view of the struggle for existence; consequently they would most likely be rapidly eliminated in the wild state by the operation of natural selection" (1964, p. 10, emphasis added). And who was Maurice Caullery? He was a French biologist. 1868-1958. What do we KNOW about research into Genetics in France during the time his book was published? Annual Review of GeneticsDecember 1999, Vol. 33, pp. 313-349 Abstract: French genetics had unusual beginnings. There are clear indications that the French biological establishment resisted Mendelian genetics strenuously from about 1910 to 1940. From about 1930 to 1950 several unconventional research programs with a strongly physiological orientation paved the way for the full entrance of French biology into genetics after World War II. This review examines some salient features of this history to clarify the strengths, weaknesses, and distinctive features of French genetics until about 1965. We suggest that after that date French genetics slowly merged into the international mainstream as genetics has become a largely molecular discipline. This is a perfect example of the type of fallacious efforts Creationists use to try to invent a schism in science, especially RE Evolution. They find a few words that they can twist out of context or relavence. The entire field of French Genetic Research was floundering when this book was published. If the French efforts had found the reverse to be true the process would also have been reversed and the French approach to gene
Freethinker Posted May 4, 2004 Report Posted May 4, 2004 Originally posted by: tinbudOriginally posted by: Freethinker To state that nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them is absurd. Statistically nearly all mutations have no relevant effect at all. They fit with-in the bell curve. While the few benefitial ones will tend to improve the species and the negative ones will end at that generation The point is to examine the likelihood that random, beneficial mutations will occur. Such as the evolutionary benefitial mutations flu viruses go thru that allow them to reinfect us year after year after year. Slam Dunk!
Freethinker Posted May 4, 2004 Report Posted May 4, 2004 Originally posted by: tinbudOriginally posted by: Freethinker If these sources ever read NEW sources, they would know better. Such as how the lengths of beaks in birds generationally follow the tides in some sea birds. Getting longer and shorter during successive generations based on direct response to environmental conditions. This was covered in Darwin's "Origins". So if these sources would catch up to the 19th Century, they would be getting colser to today's knowledge. Is that what you call a mutation? That sounds more like my toenails getting long so I have to cut them off. Speaking of Darwin: As said before. Your inability to comprehend things does not disprove them. Genetic trends passed thru successive generations is not in any way similar to your bad hygene.
Freethinker Posted May 4, 2004 Report Posted May 4, 2004 Originally posted by: tinbud "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them" - Charles Darwin (William Federer, America's God and Country, 1996, p. 199). Back to trying to disprove Evolution by attacking Darwin. Yep, tells us a lot about you and Creationist drivel.
Freethinker Posted May 4, 2004 Report Posted May 4, 2004 Originally posted by: tinbudI know you probably have a canned answer for this but I'll ask anyway. Where are the transitional forms? At which point tinboy goes into the previously covered "Darwinian Evolution is all there is, just as Newtonian Physics is the only physics there is..." convolution. Here is more cut and paste for emphasis. David Raup ... admits that the fossil record has been misinterpreted if not outright mischaracterized. He writes: "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. Yada Yada Yada.... From there we move to one of the least credible Creationist sources spewing nonsense oout there. Biochemist Behe,... Behe is exposed time after time after time. His outright fallacies are tossed back in his face over and over. Yet he refuses to ever acknowledge how thoughly discredited he is. Just so he can keep selling books and misleading those that do not have the desire to research FACTUAL sources. [q[]"An everyday example of irreducible complexity is a mousetrap, built of several pieces (platform, hammer, spring and so on). Such a system probably cannot be put together in a Darwinian manner, Noice the same "attack Darwinian Evolution" nosense so common with Creationists. From there we go to what Carl Sagan referred to disbelief because of fear of big numbers.Michael Denton, the microbiologist and senior research fellow at the University of Otago in New Zealand,..."To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology," writes Dr. Denton, "we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometres in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. "On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings,.." This is a microbiologist's description of one cell. The human body contains about 10 trillion (10,000,000,000,000) brain, nerve, muscle and other types of cells.whether the number is big because of how many digits there are one side of the decimal point, or the other.What are the odds that the enzymes needed to produce the simplest living creature-with each enzyme performing a specific chemical function-could come together by chance? Astrophysicists Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated the odds at one chance in 10^40,000 (that is, 10 to the 40,000th power: mathematical shorthand for a 10 followed by 40,000 zeros, a number long enough to fill about seven pages of this publication).OOOOOooooooooooooo that's a BIIIGGGG number! Lots of those magical ZEROS! Originally posted by: Freethinker The same is heard from people addicted to anything. Once again, uncalled for. Because I can't convince you doesn't mean I'm wrong. It means you will believe what you want regardless. I don't BELIEVE anything. I accept things when there is enough proof that a reasoned decision can be made. BELIEF is what is used when a person has not VALID reason to accept something. Could you CONVINCE me of your point? Sure you could. All it takes is FACTS. Valid, verifable, scientifically supportable PROOF. Meanwhile, you keep BELIEVING things you admit you can not PROVE, if that is how low you set the bar for yourself. It makes you feel good. And that is what all addicted people use as an excuse.
Freethinker Posted May 4, 2004 Report Posted May 4, 2004 Originally posted by: alexWell, there is proof in a way. About a year back there was an article in subscribe.ru's newsletter about a Russian scientist that proved the existance of a point in space at which the energies of all the objects in the universe collide at one spot, by that prooving the possibility of God's existance. I tried searching online, but unfortunately could not find any information about the topic, sadly enough... There always have been, are and will be any number of individuals that make all kinds of claims. Science requires repeatability, verifyability, and falsifyability. Will others be able to repeat it? Verify it? Show what could make it FALSE? Regardless of all of that, there is NOTHING in the potential of some singularity that would PROVE a god.
Veritas Posted May 5, 2004 Report Posted May 5, 2004 Freethinker, not to be rude, but you haven't given any proof that God doesn't exist. If you prove that, I'll back down.
tinbud Posted May 5, 2004 Report Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by: FreethinkerYou need to learn to break your responses up. Thanks for the advice.Originally posted by: Freethinker1) Evolutionists. Note how there is an attempt to demonize the issue by using name calling! We are not talking about SCIENTISTS! We are not talking about 99.5% of all SCIENTISTS that are DIRECTLY related to the field of biology, We are talking about those know nothing EVOLUTIONISTS! 2) SCIENTISTS, peer reviewed, qualified - virtually EVERY ONE OF THEM that have even the closest association with biology sciences agree that Evolution is the ONLY theory that comes close to explaining the diversity of life on earth. But calling them SCIENTISTS (as they actually ARE) does not allow them to be discredited as easily. What an unbelievably weak argument that is. You are upset because you feel someone is name calling and labelling? Practically all you have done is insult me. Tinboy is very creative by the way. It must have taken you a while to think that up. This is a good technique for you. You insult me and attempt to establish yourself as a superior being. You then basically claim everything I say is invalid while not actually disproving it. All the while, you never actually offer any proof of what you believe. And yes, you believe in it. It is your best guess. Or someone else's best guess. The theory of evolution is filled with assumptions and gaps that can't be filled except by the imagination of those that believe in it.
sanctus Posted May 5, 2004 Report Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by: tinbud You are upset because you feel someone is name calling and labelling? Practically all you have done is insult me. . I don't want to defend freethinker, he can do that himself. But, it seems to me that you don't understand what a discussion is: somebody says something, someone else says why he doesn't believe in it and so on; that's all. If I say what you are saying is bullshit I may be not polite, but I'm not insulting anybody (unless you call it an insult for a bull). If I say you're an ignorant about something, it's not an insult neither, it means just that I think that you ignore (i.e. don't know about) that thing.So, please stop please to tell all the time someone doesn't agree with you that he is insulting you. A part from that: you say evolution is very unlikely to happen, because (I don't remember well all the numbers) it's supposed to be (with some restrictions) one change out of 10^40. I agree to our usual comprehension this seems to be very, very small, but how many other solar systems are there? How many other universes?The first response I don't know, but there are a number very, very big to our usual comprehension.The seciond answer I know, an infinity (the proof is in the general relativity, if you get enough energy- called the energy of Planck, if I remember well- you open passages to the other universes-I'm sure there is people on this forum that can explain it better), therefore even if the reponse to my first question were that there is one solar system per universe that has the conditions like the ones on earth to permit evolution, even then we could be sure that evolution happens, because 1 out of 10^40 when we have got an infinity turns out to happen infinite times.
Freethinker Posted May 5, 2004 Report Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by: VeritasFreethinker, not to be rude, but you haven't given any proof that God doesn't exist. If you prove that, I'll back down. Oh not this again! Seriously, you Christians are so ignorant. I am so tired of having to explain this over and over and over to you people. Fortunately the one of the specific fallacies this represents uses a directly related word to describe the thought process this represents. argumentum ad ignorantiam - the argument to ignorance. Pretending that because something has not been specifically proven wrong, it must be true! IGNORANCE! Now if you had bothered to READ some of the posts here, you would not be showing your IGNORANCE. I really don't want to have to treat a new member this way. But it really does get so tiring. For those of you that have had to go thru this numersous times already, I appoligize for having to waste all of your time again in order to help remove the ignorance from this discussion, again. Now back to (for the umpteenth time...) Shifting the Burden of Proof. The universe was created by the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn. PROVE I am wrong! YOU CAN'T! So therefore I must be correct! Nana na na na! Phhhttttt Where was I, Oh Ya! Shifting the Burden of Proof. At this point let's assume that you have no concept of constructing a logical argument. Since you violate one of the most common rules of it. Burden of Proof. It is really very simple. It is IMPOSSIBLE to PROVE that something does not exist. The entire concept is absurd. You can not prove that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, .... do not exist. But is this an excuse to accept belief in any of them? Obviously not. Any adult that would accept belief in these myths would be laughed at (or pitied?) by any educated individual. And rightly so. Burden of Proof - Thus since NON-existence can not be proven, the Burden of Proof rests on the person making the claim that something DOES exist. If the person making a positive claim for the existence of something can not provide VALID proof for it, there is no reason for anyone interested in having an intellectually honest discussion to allow it into the discussion. Thus if you want to believe in any particular combination of superstitions that is up to you. But if you want to have an intellegent discussion, don't pretend that you can just toss out any nonsense you wish and have it accepted. If you can't PROVE it, keep it to yourself and don;t waste our time. And don't pretend that the FACT that a god existence can not be disproved is of any value in supporting the myth. HOWEVER. Just because non-existence of ANYTHING can not be PROVEN, once specific defintions are put in place, such as the definitions typically assigned to the Christain god myth (which even Christains can't agree on), those defintions CAN be evaluted based on outside reference, internal contradictions and violations of KNOWN facts or established theories. e.g. QM and specifically Uncertainty show that the Christian defined god can not exist. An intellegent "First Cause" entity can not exist. Oh, and if you still don't "get it", PROVE that the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. and did not create everything. Then "I'll back down".
Freethinker Posted May 5, 2004 Report Posted May 5, 2004 Originally posted by: tinbudWhat an unbelievably weak argument that is. Are you reading in a mirror? So far your argument has been to paste fallacies from highly discredited sources and selective mis-information. I have pointed those out as such. I have no intention of refuting a discreditted source point by point just to prove once more that they ARE STILL a discredited source. I waste enough time reposting Fallacies of Argumentation every time another Christian shows up and tries to use them. Tinboy is very creative by the way. Thanks, I was proud of that one! :-) It must have taken you a while to think that up. Actually no, it was very obvious. This is a good technique for you. You insult me and attempt to establish yourself as a superior being. This is what I refer to as my "When in Rome..." approach. And "Teach by example". You then basically claim everything I say is invalid while not actually disproving it. Showing that a claimed proof is NOT a VALID proof, IS disproving it. It is NOT however disproving the original assertion (that would be the fallacy of argumentum ad logicam), but it IS proving valid rejection of the claimed proof. All the while, you never actually offer any proof of what you believe. 1) I don't "believe" in anything (how many times have I posted THIS?) I "accept" things for convenience based on the existence of VALID support for it. 2) what assertions have I not provided PROOF for? I will be happy to do so. And yes, you believe in it. PROVE it. It is your best guess. Or someone else's best guess. The theory... Yep, here we go again. Suddenly "THEORY" is attacked, minimalized to PRETEND that a THEORY is is nothing more than a random GUESS. We are GUESSING that Gravity is the reason we do not just float off into space. We GUESS that light is both a particle and a wave. It doesn't matter how much PROOF there is for these theories, how well they can predict events, they are nothing but wild guesses. of evolution is filled with assumptions and gaps that can't be filled except by the imagination of those that believe in it. Gaps? You want GAPS? Try filling the MASSIVE gaps in our understanding of Gravity. Or even more, the GAPS in explaining how a wave can collapse into a particle because it KNOWS it is going to be observed IN THE FUTURE and therefore has to appear as a particle earlier. But we don't hear you anti-science fanatics screaming for the rejection of PHYSICS! Oh no! There is significantly more factual evidence to support, a significantly better understanding of the process of Evolution, than both Gravity and Particles combined. Are there gaps? Sure. Science NEVER claims 100% proof for ANYTHING. Only Christians are selfrighteous enough to make such absurd claims to perfect knowledge.
IrishEyes Posted May 5, 2004 Report Posted May 5, 2004 Only Christians are selfrighteous enough to make such absurd claims to perfect knowledge. And again I say "YOU ARE A GOOF"!!! I don't claim perfect knowledge, but everyone here knows I HAVE IT!! :>P (that was a JOKE!!!) Seriously, it is statements like the above that leave people feeling personally attacked. Not ALL Christians are 'selfrighteous enough to make absurd claims to perfect knowledge'. In fact, i would say that the ONLY one that can claim PERFECT KNOWLEDGE is GOD, or IPU, or whatever you want to call it! LOL.
Recommended Posts