Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

a reply to: Raggedymandingo

and another fine Gish Gallop from our resident Kent Hovind aficionado. Address not a single aspect of science, tell others they're stupid, make fallacious claims and refuse support anything all while offering nothing remotely resembling substance. Well done. Scientific illiteracy clearly suits you well.

a reply to: cooperton

Adaptation is evolution. "Adaptation mechanism" didnt evolve, the mechanism behind genetic variance which is what gives rise to adaptation are chemical processes.

Regardless if a genetic mutation is used or not, if an organism reproduces, the genetics are passed on. The fact that genetics are passed on from one generation to the next completely invalidates your attempt here.

You are creating a strawman argument trying to redefine genetic code.

As for the founding of ideas behind creationism nonsense, I am familiar with them. I also understand that to have a debate both sides need to be able to support their position and there is zero evidence of ID.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedymandingo

and another fine Gish Gallop from our resident Kent Hovind aficionado. Address not a single aspect of science, tell others they're stupid, make fallacious claims and refuse support anything all while offering nothing remotely resembling substance. Well done. Scientific illiteracy clearly suits you well.

Yeah you are right, saying that your beliefs are stupid does indicate you are stupid, I take that back, apologies.

Should have been ignorant

Scientific illiteracy hey, care to justify that.
I dont believe humanity arose out of dust and water yet you do, I dont believe that mankind came from fish, monkeys or a virus, yet some do.

I dont believe the geological time scale, a 200 year old science is accurate, that a few bones dug up all over the world prove anything other than they are bones found in the ground, yet you seemingly do. I dont believe dating methods are accurate, yet I assume again you think they are.

Yet because i question your holy cow I am completely and utterly scientifically illiterate
Hyperbole or are you inferring I am stupid?

I guess all you can do is attack, when you have nothing valid, no position defendable

www.youtube.com...
Kent explaining why Dawkins isnt the man he claims to be



Raggedymandingo, thats so funny tee hee hee

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Raggedymandingo

...from our resident Kent Hovind aficionado. ...tell others they're stupid, ...

Proverbs 13:20 (NW):

20 The one walking with the wise will become wise,

But the one who has dealings with the stupid will fare badly.

Don't drink the tar-water people! See quotation further below concerning "No one wants a mind contaminated with poison."



1 Corinthians 15:33 (NW):

Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits.

Haven't read all his comments or yours, but there seem to be a lot of comments where people are calling eachother stupid, might it have something to do with the popularity among well-earning speakers to use the following technique to increase the popularity of their views and themselves? And what we're observing on the internet is the effect it has on the way people that listen to their arguments and presentations talk to and view eachother?

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

Source: The Manipulation of Information

Notice Dawkins using the same trick when he contrasts a so-called "sophisticated physicist" with a "naive person" to encourage the listener to accept his obscured claim, philosophy and paradox/contradiction/nonsense that "nothing...is...something":

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and (sometimes) moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.
...
They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.
...
AS MEANS of communicating have expanded...the flow of persuasive messages has dramatically accelerated. This communications revolution has led to information overload, as people are inundated by countless messages from every quarter. Many respond to this pressure by absorbing messages more quickly and accepting them without questioning or analyzing them.

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language [the whole video, but emphasized by Dawkins himself at 2:42], and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.
...
Be selective: A completely open mind could be likened to a pipe that lets just anything flow through it—even sewage. No one wants a mind contaminated with poison. Solomon, a king and educator in ancient times, warned: “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15)
...
Use discernment: Discernment is “acuteness of judgment.” It is “the power or faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes one thing from another.” A person with discernment perceives subtleties of ideas or things and has good judgment.

Using discernment, we will be able to recognize those who are merely using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18) Discernment enables you to discard irrelevant information or misleading facts and distinguish the substance of a matter.

a reply to: whereislogic

Its probably better to listen to the full arguement then just a few cuts from Dr. Dawkins speaking...

wouldn't you say?

a reply to: Akragon

I prefer to:

Use discernment: Discernment is “acuteness of judgment.” It is “the power or faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes one thing from another.” A person with discernment perceives subtleties of ideas or things and has good judgment.

Using discernment, we will be able to recognize those who are merely using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18) Discernment enables you to discard irrelevant information or misleading facts and distinguish the substance of a matter.

It's not quote-mining or presenting a straw man regarding your opinion about that video that you did not spell out (but sort of implied or expressed), try to keep up. I believe in your capabilities to do so, no matter how much they're bend out of shape. Perhaps taking some more time to read the comment more attentively rather than dismissively before you respond also helps. I also tend to edit in extra details regarding what I think people are thinking about when I share a video or something else, such as in this case your possible thought about quote-mining or supposed misrepresentation of Dawkins' claims and views, or supposed unwillingness to hear out the rest of his or Krauss' smooth talk about the word "nothing", which I did partly listen to only to notice more attempts at "capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, agitating the emotions, exploiting insecurities, and bending rules of logic". To name just a few examples including the 2 emotions I emphasized in my opening quotation, fear and pride.

a reply to: Akragon

Why, do you think your gnosticism will reveal something from nothing also

a reply to: whereislogic

Love the Dawkins rap clip, who knew only the physicist knew something was nothing or was that nothing was something.

Just a side note, amygdalin as a poison
Lets not jump the shark just yet

www.inchem.org...

Many cultures have a diet high in B17, happy to explain that study if you like

originally posted by: cooperton
Plato called this the logos, which means Reason.

Regarding my encouragement to Peter Vlar and Akragon which counts for everyone:

Be selective: A completely open mind could be likened to a pipe that lets just anything flow through it—even sewage. No one wants a mind contaminated with poison. Solomon, a king and educator in ancient times, warned: “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15)

Use discernment:...

What I quoted from cooperton is an example what happens if you're not selective, or using discernment and several other useful logical techniques described in the article that is on the next page as the page that I linked to. Besides the fact that if you want to keep your mind healthy it's not a good thing to read too much of Plato's work (or take it seriously) cooperton makes no mention of the other meaning for the Greek word "logos":

For example, in the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” Christians, he said, received the word in the person of Christ himself. However, logos in the sense of reason is found in every man, including pagans. Thus, he concluded, those who live in harmony with reason are Christians, even those who claimed or were thought to be atheists, like Socrates and others.

Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma.

Source: The Apologists—Christian Defenders or Would-Be Philosophers?

There is no logical, rational answer seems to be the consensus from the intelligentsia

and they can live with that, comfortably

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Prove your point or mine? All or nothing? Research paper, reference, citation?

Weren't you the one touting biochemical knowledge? You know that an alteration in the genomic sequence for an enzyme would significantly alter its conformation and thus function - this requires no citation to reinforce, its common knowledge for biochemists.

Bisphosphoglycerate mutase is the enzyme coded for by the gene that is ultimately responsible for 2,3-BPG production. One alteration in the sequence and that enzyme no longer functions like bisphosphoglycerate mutase or perhaps no longer is expressed in erythrocytes; so it is all or nothing. This random mutation would've had to hit a very unprobable bullseye, not to mention the possibility that any chance mutation could upset the rest of the body's equilibirum. Also, the template gene that is hypothetically getting mutated, is now, well, mutated, and also not working the same. Then we go back to the initial unlikelihood - what are the odds that high altitudes are even relevant to this mutant organism? I could go on and on...

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Self organized and self assembled molecular systems have been observed for a long time. An algorithm is simply a set of rules. The rules can be structured or random. Does someone have to write them? Not necessarily. To program a computer, someone must write the code. But self organizing biological systems don't need anyone to program them. Put the components of DNA in solution, it will self organize into a structure (depends on temperature, pressure, pH, etc).
Micromolecules form macromolecules to achieve the lowest energy state - the lowest Gibbs free energy state.

Structure-function: it's how biological systems work.

Yes, this is not random, it is mathematically predictable. Do you realize this is a sign of intelligence? Plato called this the logos, which means Reason. Mathematics, he thought, were proof of universal truth. We take it for granted, and don't realize the implications of having mathematically predictable systems - but it strongly insists, and in my opinion guarantees, that there is an authoritative Mathematician as the Creator.

A citation would be helpful - if you don't have one, well................
You're forgiven. But that doesn't validate your statement.

Yes it is intelligence. A self organizing system is exhibiting intelligence but that doesn't necessarily mean that someone or something "did it". It may have its own inherent intelligence. Your logic is always a one way street - there are other possibilities. Think big!

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Akragon

Why, do you think your gnosticism will reveal something from nothing also

Don't use words you don't understand bud...

a reply to: Akragon

It's ok, the word Gnosticism was revealed to me by gnosisfaith, he made it very clear what youse all are

I clearly see and read what and who you are, gf

Bacon smells like long pig

a reply to: Akragon

Besides, Dawkins uses these propaganda tactics, including the one described as appealing to pride and playing on our fear of seeming stupid, so many times that I can't even keep count and he's not the only one (Neil deGrasse Tyson is the first one that comes to mind now, Bill Nye the next, I can continue but that's not what this comment was for). Here's another example from Dawkins at 1:28 (one caveat regarding this video: please ignore the phrase "nobody knows" by anyone who uses it in this video, they don't get the right to speak for others and that way of thinking or talking about that subject is misleading regarding established facts and correct logical conclusions drawn from them, as well as the meaning of the verb "know" and the word "knowledge", which I don't want to get into again in this comment):



Oh, btw, you can forget about that speculated minimum of 250 proteins at 5:43. No frikkin way. Fake life in a lab with carefully maintained environments to preserve what is being experimented on doesn't count (fake life as in erronuously referred to as "life" by the ones doing experimentation and nano-engineering; and something that can't even survive longer than a few generations in a natural environment isn't going to be of much use to what he's thinking about either, the minimum requirements for a living reproducing organism that can survive the 'test of time' and nature, which is required "to provide minimal life function", using his words that he's no doubt quoting from elsewhere to somehow minimize or reduce the requirements by changing what is being thought about, now I'm talking about the motive of the ones he's quoting, probably some published article from evolutionary philosophers). There's another problem with the analogy that is used with the slotmachines later on, but not the problem people like Akragon and Krazysh0t are probably thinking about when they see that (influenced by philosophies including the circular argument that says something about us being here, therefore 'nature did it', I've even seen some people conclude from this line of thinking that the odds or probability is 1 or 100% because it happened, dismissing the whole example that way). The problem is actually for the chemical evolution myth (both referred to as "the chemical evolution theory of life" as "the hypothesis of abiogenesis" in the past). In order for there even to be a chance, Mother Nature must be able to try out different combinations of very specificly shaped molecules with nothing interfering that prevents the trials (and if you're only granting a headstart with ribonucleotides for example, they aren't gonna do much even when they start sticking together, the same counts for amino acids, proteins usually aren't functional until they're folded by a highly specialized folding machine called a "chaperone", that loses functionality with all observed mutations to it so far). Nothing is discussed about that problem most of the times when this subject of odds, chance and probability comes up. The probability that 'nature did it' is 0 for me as long as this isn't adressed (interdependency).

The example video I used first though has way more propagada tricks in it, including the lie that he's not a philosopher towards the end. So that's why I like that one, it nicely sums up a whole bunch of tricks (how many words did he even needed to use to play both fear and pride in that small subsentence? That was awesomely cunning). The video even includes a hint or clue regarding the theists' love for philosophy (which relates to the article I linked about "the apologists"). Looking down upon Dawkins from their high and mighty chair of philosophy (without spelling out those attitudes towards the word "philosopher" and without emphasizing that Dawkins is one of the most influential and succesful philosophers on the planet, spreading or expressing his beliefs in ancient Pagan philosophy just like the ones making fun of him. WWF wrestling might be a term you've heard before regarding politics and a term you can think about now regarding the so-called wise men of this world, which includes both Dawkins and W.L.Craig, and a whole bunch of others in their respective cliques.

Man evolved helped by Anunnaki. Isn't that already known? God didn't have "hands" to make the man out of dust, neither by genetic modification. God used someone. Like it or not, according to the available ancient documents that someone most likely were the Anunaki. New documents might prove it otherwise, but until this moment they haven't surfaced yet. That doesn't deny that God created the spirit of humans. As John Paul II said, admitting the evolution from inferior species.

Moreover, while reading the Holy Scripture, one has to keep in mind the language of the Bible time. Heaven could mean sky and space as well (Cielo is still used as both sky and heaven in languages like Italian and Spanish). Cloud could mean ET flying device that we would call today UFO. Angel most likely means extraterrestrial, and NOT purely spiritual being as we were told in Sunday schools about Angels. Stars mean also planets, since the word planet is invented much later. A new reread is a must and it has been delayed quite long time after the humanity reached that level of knowledge. The religious are in great debt towards the human civilization. Their prompt reaction now is needed not so much to excuse past errors that today's religious are not personally involved, such as Giordano Bruno and Galilei. But much more, to assure the religions continue in the future. Anyway, they will continue renewed, with or without their current servants. The truth is already out there for decades. It is a matter of choice now. As it were during Jesus Christ and during the era of the prophets.

a reply to: whereislogic

I don't know your beliefs and I don't mind what they are
What you say is very interesting

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: Cypress

Its not opinionated and speculation when there is evidence to make an objective conclusion.

its opinionated - thats why there are still debates -if it was a flawless argument i assume there is nothing to debate.

we don't debate whether we need air to survive- because its fact.

The problem is there is no debate regarding whether evolution occurs or not. We know it happens. We make objective conclusions based on evidence. Evidence is not speculation. The debates on the subject are more or less technicallities as we gain a better understanding of the relationships between the variables and determining what variables affected our history. We know we share a close common anscestor with primates. Thats a fact and is proven with evidence.

The counter argument representing creation does not equal a debate. It has zero evidence to support the position; therefore, there is no debate...

nah, the problem is that y'all been gettin' trolololololled since page 1...

...and you keep. coming. back. for. more.

50 pages of back and forth and nothing has changed. nada. all they want is attention, to be seen "fighting the good fight". that goes for all parties. theres nothing to prove or gain here. everything that can be said, has already been said. all the evidence that can be shared right now, has been shared.

why is this thread still alive. do these people have nothing better to do than spinning in virtual donuts on an internet forum? do you like dancing for the creationists of ATS? do you enjoy playing their games while they point and laugh because you are too stubborn to quit? and then you get frustrated when they turn out to be just as stubborn as you.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yet here you are
The regular Frank Burns of ats

I just want one of these supposed learned gentleman to say
We don't know, there are still so many questions that need answering, our foundations are flawed, it's all a big guess

I don't want attention, I just want these who don't agree to,accept that their answers hang on nada

It's not a game, right now, no one can claim the high ground, it's all faith, just admit it

I wil walk away

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TzarChasm

Yet here you are
The regular Frank Burns of ats

I just want one of these supposed learned gentleman to say
We don't know, there are still so many questions that need answering, our foundations are flawed, it's all a big guess

I don't want attention, I just want these who don't agree to,accept that their answers hang on nada

It's not a game, right now, no one can claim the high ground, it's all faith, just admit it

I wil walk away

we already know what you want. you wont get it. the most beautiful and terrifying thing about truth, is that you cant change it, no matter what.

hasta la vista, like the terminator told ya.

a reply to: TzarChasm

And you and yours don't know what it is so insert what best suits you

That's my issue