Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Forum hits 50,000 posts

Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 6:44:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 1:09:10 AM, Midnight1131 wrote:
Let us come together to celebrate this momentous occasion. :

Thank our Lord and you all for allowing me to be a part of it, I love you all here, and may there be 50,000 more.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 1:37:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 1:09:10 AM, Midnight1131 wrote:
Let us come together to celebrate this momentous occasion.

Indeed. If only it were 50,000 "scientific" posts!
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 6:25:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 1:37:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2015 1:09:10 AM, Midnight1131 wrote:
Let us come together to celebrate this momentous occasion.

Indeed. If only it were 50,000 "scientific" posts!

Let's make it a 50,000 post resolution to have this forum be an actual science forum before it hits 100k.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 6:41:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 6:25:11 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 1:37:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2015 1:09:10 AM, Midnight1131 wrote:
Let us come together to celebrate this momentous occasion.

Indeed. If only it were 50,000 "scientific" posts!

Let's make it a 50,000 post resolution to have this forum be an actual science forum before it hits 100k.

In all honestly, the one's who proclaim that the "religion" of science is wrong do actually prove to be at least somewhat beneficial, in a way. In refutation of their claims, Ramshutu and others have provided loads of detailed and informed posts which probably would have never emerged, otherwise. Although those for whom the information was intended likely just ignored it, I know I certainly did not. Similarly, I have consequentially learned a significant amount in my lesser efforts to do the same.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 10:30:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 6:41:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2015 6:25:11 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 1:37:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2015 1:09:10 AM, Midnight1131 wrote:
Let us come together to celebrate this momentous occasion.

Indeed. If only it were 50,000 "scientific" posts!

Let's make it a 50,000 post resolution to have this forum be an actual science forum before it hits 100k.

In all honestly, the one's who proclaim that the "religion" of science is wrong do actually prove to be at least somewhat beneficial, in a way.

I agree, Chaosism. Until one explains how we know what we know to people who don't understand it, one doesn't know one uh... understands it.

Unfortunately, the people who don't find science convenient tend to ask the same tedious questions, and can never say what a satisfactory answer should look like.

Whoever has been teaching young kids that all you need to understand nature is a penis and a bible, has done countless minds untold damage.
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:31:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 6:25:11 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 1:37:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2015 1:09:10 AM, Midnight1131 wrote:
Let us come together to celebrate this momentous occasion.

Indeed. If only it were 50,000 "scientific" posts!

Let's make it a 50,000 post resolution to have this forum be an actual science forum before it hits 100k. :

But how will anyone learn anything of actual scientific observations if the actual scientific posts (like "Evidence of God") are viewed through religious-science filtered glasses? Like when we say "Big-bang Theory", people now associate that to mean 'science'? Not that it's just an idea in opposition of a Creator, but they think it means science! Or when I say God the Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am", in their brainwashed minds they cannot understand that every word in that sentence is "All that can be", that you cannot have two infinites, or two eternals, or imagine another mind within your mind (not another person because that persons mind would be your own. If we ask: "What did that person you created in your mind think?" the answer is obvious, whatever you want it to think.)

Everyone, every religious leader knows that if you force something with threats, with brutal takeovers, with subtle deviations from the truth, with the edge of the sword like Constantine did with the Christian Religion, and then repeat "key-words" of that religion enough times, people will eventually believe it and accept it without really even questioning it, .. all on Blind-faith.
Like for instance Key-words over and over again:
* "60 million years ago"
* "Terrorists - al Qaeda - axis of evil - planes crashed into, .. etc
* T-rex, or after mentioning any animal in any nature-documentary, always say the words: "millions and billions of years ago"
* "Clean, safe, cheap nuclear power plants" and before we know it they are popping up upwind from every major city! So what that science proved long before one was ever constructed that it is the most dangerous thing anyone could ever build, and the consequences detrimental to all life on earth, and the effects irreversible, .. people, even though they are giving birth to two headed mutant babies with a head growing out of the other ones mouth, or that the price of electricity from those power plants is unaffordable for the average household, they will still believe it is clean, safe and cheap.
Programming, religious indoctrination is the trick, and even as I mentioned the truth behind it, the reality of it as revealed by actual observation (science), it is ignored!

So yes for 'science', but not the religious-science you two represent. Unless you meant: "Yes, (let's continue to pervert) science on this Debating site"??
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
logical-master123
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 11:20:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 10:30:21 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/23/2015 6:41:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2015 6:25:11 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 1:37:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2015 1:09:10 AM, Midnight1131 wrote:
Let us come together to celebrate this momentous occasion.

Indeed. If only it were 50,000 "scientific" posts!

Let's make it a 50,000 post resolution to have this forum be an actual science forum before it hits 100k.

In all honestly, the one's who proclaim that the "religion" of science is wrong do actually prove to be at least somewhat beneficial, in a way.

I agree, Chaosism. Until one explains how we know what we know to people who don't understand it, one doesn't know one uh... understands it.

Unfortunately, the people who don't find science convenient tend to ask the same tedious questions, and can never say what a satisfactory answer should look like.

Whoever has been teaching young kids that all you need to understand nature is a penis and a bible, has done countless minds untold damage.

Agreed no way to be science then.
Came back to the site :)
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 8:49:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 10:30:21 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/23/2015 6:41:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2015 6:25:11 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 1:37:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2015 1:09:10 AM, Midnight1131 wrote:
Let us come together to celebrate this momentous occasion.

Indeed. If only it were 50,000 "scientific" posts!

Let's make it a 50,000 post resolution to have this forum be an actual science forum before it hits 100k.

In all honestly, the one's who proclaim that the "religion" of science is wrong do actually prove to be at least somewhat beneficial, in a way.

I agree, Chaosism. Until one explains how we know what we know to people who don't understand it, one doesn't know one uh... understands it.


I also agree, this is why the Evolution and Big-bang stories should not be allowed to be preached in the science forum. So how about it fellas, can we move these stories/preaching's to the religious forum?

Unfortunately, the people who don't find science convenient tend to ask the same tedious questions, and can never say what a satisfactory answer should look like.

I agree here too, that's why when I respond to posts claimed to be of science, I demand that evidence be shown that what is being said is based on observation, not millions and billions of years ago fantastic stories. Some of these stories are actually pretty good, but hey, let's keep Shrek, Peter Pan and the Flying Spaghetti Monster in it's proper forum; "Fairytales".

Whoever has been teaching young kids that all you need to understand nature is a penis and a bible, has done countless minds untold damage. :

Ah, .. see what I mean? Teaching and indoctrinating children and then passing out seemingly harmless toys like plastic T-Rex's, .. and what you say here, that all kids need is a penis to understand nature has already done untold damage. Or that you don't even have to have a penis, because time itself will grow one for you has also done quite of damage, even laws have been passed in support of such crazy ideas that one doesn't have to have a penis to procreate, so women actually "marry" other penis-less women thinking 'father-time', or maybe the fairytale "Mother Nature" will step in and eventually grow one for them!?!?

The harm has been done already, so come on my friends, let's try to turn at least this our science forum back to science, .. what do ya-say?
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 9:36:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 8:49:07 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 9/27/2015 10:30:21 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/23/2015 6:41:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2015 6:25:11 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 1:37:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2015 1:09:10 AM, Midnight1131 wrote:
Let us come together to celebrate this momentous occasion.
Indeed. If only it were 50,000 "scientific" posts!
Let's make it a 50,000 post resolution to have this forum be an actual science forum before it hits 100k.
In all honestly, the one's who proclaim that the "religion" of science is wrong do actually prove to be at least somewhat beneficial, in a way.
I agree, Chaosism. Until one explains how we know what we know to people who don't understand it, one doesn't know one uh... understands it.
I also agree, this is why the Evolution and Big-bang stories should not be allowed to be preached in the science forum.
...without understanding the history, the process, the methods, the evidence, there's no point in doing so. However if you understand them, it's not preaching, because every piece of explanation isn't 'testimony' or 'witnessing'; it's independently accountable.

Unfortunately, the people who don't find science convenient tend to ask the same tedious questions, and can never say what a satisfactory answer should look like.
that's why when I respond to posts claimed to be of science, I demand that evidence be shown that what is being said is based on observation, not millions and billions of years ago fantastic stories.
All science is based on historical observations, Ev. It's due to the speed of light being uh... finite; and analysis occurring after observation.

Whoever has been teaching young kids that all you need to understand nature is a penis and a bible, has done countless minds untold damage.
what you say here, that all kids need is a penis to understand nature has already done untold damage.
Actually you need more than dogma to understand nature, Ev. You need a really solid understanding of evidence, transparency, accountability, and how objective observation and falsification work.

If you'd ever like to learn about why empiricism isn't dogmatism, you'd be welcome to ask questions while not assuming you know the answer.
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 11:20:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 9:36:13 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:49:07 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 9/27/2015 10:30:21 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/23/2015 6:41:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2015 6:25:11 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 9/23/2015 1:37:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2015 1:09:10 AM, Midnight1131 wrote:
Let us come together to celebrate this momentous occasion.
Indeed. If only it were 50,000 "scientific" posts!
Let's make it a 50,000 post resolution to have this forum be an actual science forum before it hits 100k.
In all honestly, the one's who proclaim that the "religion" of science is wrong do actually prove to be at least somewhat beneficial, in a way.
I agree, Chaosism. Until one explains how we know what we know to people who don't understand it, one doesn't know one uh... understands it.
I also agree, this is why the Evolution and Big-bang stories should not be allowed to be preached in the science forum.
...without understanding the history, the process, the methods, the evidence, there's no point in doing so. However if you understand them, it's not preaching, because every piece of explanation isn't 'testimony' or 'witnessing'; it's independently accountable.

OK, here is a 'single celled bacteria' and over here we have a human/man. THAT is observation.
Now the stories made up on how your religion BELIEVES this single celled bacteria EVOLVED by no will or plan of anyone or anything into this man here, is NOT from any evidence, or observation OK? Any supporting-story on evolution is accepted by the religion, but any opposition (like my "Evidence of God") has to be, and will be rejected, and any opposition is held accountable (told they have cancer and slowly poisoned to death). This religion has taken over science where now the word "Evolution" means 'science.' Accountable, .. lol!? Like when the Tobacco industry was being held accountable for doing studies on the health-risk of inhaled tobacco smoke, .. and after spending millions of dollars found that tobacco does absolutely no harm to the human body. So they continued to advertise cigarettes during ball games.

Unfortunately, the people who don't find science convenient tend to ask the same tedious questions, and can never say what a satisfactory answer should look like.
that's why when I respond to posts claimed to be of science, I demand that evidence be shown that what is being said is based on observation, not millions and billions of years ago fantastic stories.
All science is based on historical observations, Ev. It's due to the speed of light being uh... finite; and analysis occurring after observation.

Whoever has been teaching young kids that all you need to understand nature is a penis and a bible, has done countless minds untold damage.
what you say here, that all kids need is a penis to understand nature has already done untold damage.
Actually you need more than dogma to understand nature, Ev. You need a really solid understanding of evidence, transparency, accountability, and how objective observation and falsification work.

If you'd ever like to learn about why empiricism isn't dogmatism, you'd be welcome to ask questions while not assuming you know the answer. :

Yes, I know how it works, and who decides what is evidence or not, and best of all, who it is that is 'accountable' if a deformed human jawbone is claimed o be the 'missing link';
"Yes Professor, that looks real good. And don't worry about all those other minute questionable details you pointed out, well take full accountability for that. You just enjoy your Nobel Prize now, you hear!?"

It's like taking a Mormon to the Mormon Temple to be held accountable for being a Mormon using the Book of Mormon .. let the trials begin! .. lol.

But yes, the Day is quickly approaching when we all will be held accountable for every idle word we said, especially what we forced down peoples throats. Yes, all religions along with their doctrines will go on trial, and they will have all the TIME in eternity to come up with the evidence of their claims, which I for one am looking so much forward to.

LOL, .. I can just see Darwin, Lemaitre, Hawking, Lady Gaga, the Popes, George Bush, all the Dalai Lamas, and my favorite 'Richard Dawkins' along with their billions of fans/worshipers stand before God's Throne of Judgment:

God: "Now ladies and gentlemen, I have created you, and everything that you didn't, so now present evidence contrary to that? Show us how a universe could pop out of nothing with a Big-Bang and expand in nothing creating space within itself to expand itself into? Or how a hot rock could cool a single celled bacteria that eventually evolves into you my dear children? RuvDraba, would you like to start?"
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 11:41:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 11:20:01 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 10/25/2015 9:36:13 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:49:07 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 9/27/2015 10:30:21 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/23/2015 6:41:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
In all honestly, the one's who proclaim that the "religion" of science is wrong do actually prove to be at least somewhat beneficial, in a way.
I agree, Chaosism. Until one explains how we know what we know to people who don't understand it, one doesn't know one uh... understands it.
I also agree, this is why the Evolution and Big-bang stories should not be allowed to be preached in the science forum.
...without understanding the history, the process, the methods, the evidence, there's no point in doing so. However if you understand them, it's not preaching, because every piece of explanation isn't 'testimony' or 'witnessing'; it's independently accountable.
OK, here is a 'single celled bacteria' and over here we have a human/man. THAT is observation.
Now the stories made up on how your religion BELIEVES this single celled bacteria EVOLVED by no will or plan of anyone or anything into this man here, is NOT from any evidence, or observation OK?
No, that's untrue, Ev. Firstly, the (unnamed) bacterium you're singling out is probably not an ancestor of man. It too is a descendant of a common ancestor, now long replaced by other species. There's no reason to suppose that any modern bacterium is an ancestor of any vertebrate.

Secondly, it is from evidence. However I believe you don't understand what the evidence is, the context in which it occurs, the methods used to analyse it, the mechanisms identified in the process, the validation of those mechanisms, the predictions used to validate the model, or the enormous scrutiny to which it has been put.

That wouldn't normally matter, because the same insights underpinning evolution also underpin disciplines and technologies you probably don't question -- like epidemiology, bioinformatics, vaccinations, pest control, modern animal husbandry, and biochemical engineering.

However, unfortunately, due to pre-existing biases, you can't accept evolution, yet don't have the patience, humility, education or tolerance to learn what you need to understand it. So laziness and conceit make it more convenient to find excuses to deny evidence in this case, than admit ignorance, all the while accepting other science as given -- including all the sciences and technologies I mentioned above.

Unfortunately, Ev, you do everyone a disservice every time you misrepresent laziness, ignorance and emotional biases as insight born from diligent, independent scrutiny. To do so is both an intellectual and a moral flaw, but one very common among minds raised to defend ignorant dogma, rather than question it.

While I don't think those flaws are worth insulting someone over (especially since you've been taught them as virtues), regrettably, your opinions should not be respected either.
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 9:43:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 11:41:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/25/2015 11:20:01 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 10/25/2015 9:36:13 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:49:07 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 9/27/2015 10:30:21 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/23/2015 6:41:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
In all honestly, the one's who proclaim that the "religion" of science is wrong do actually prove to be at least somewhat beneficial, in a way.
I agree, Chaosism. Until one explains how we know what we know to people who don't understand it, one doesn't know one uh... understands it.
I also agree, this is why the Evolution and Big-bang stories should not be allowed to be preached in the science forum.
OK, here is a 'single celled bacteria' and over here we have a human/man. THAT is observation.
Now the stories made up on how your religion BELIEVES this single celled bacteria EVOLVED by no will or plan of anyone or anything into this man here, is NOT from any evidence, or observation OK? : :

No, that's untrue, Ev. Firstly, the (unnamed) bacterium you're singling out is probably not an ancestor of man. It too is a descendant of a common ancestor, now long replaced by other species. There's no reason to suppose that any modern bacterium is an ancestor of any vertebrate.

Look, .. it is what your religion claims, it all started with a single celled bacteria. Now you claim you know that the single celled bacteria we have today is not what was there 4.2 billion years ago, fine, but I will not join your religion and study religious doctrines to accept how you guys know this? Telling people what kind of 'single celled bacteria' was there in some imagined primordial soup 4.2 BILLION years ago is religious doctrine, not science. Take anything in this world and I can make up the most ridiculous stories on how it got here and how it assembled itself using things I see around me, I could get a team together; car mechanics, builders, architects, engineers, machinists to verify the truth in whatever discipline my make-believe story covers. The car mechanic would verify my car mechanic part of my story, but how this tadpole evolved over billions of years has nothing to do with mechanics.
Look, .. it's just like the Joseph Smith story, he had some golden tablets, that was fact. But the story he made up how he got them, and what those tablets represented were his and his alone. Sure he claimed Jesus came and gave it to his uncles, grandmothers aunt who was an Indian, but whose going to verify that right? Same with your "inbetween stories" of the single celled bacteria and man, who's going to go back 4.2 BILLION years to verify your story huh? Who?

Secondly, it is from evidence. However I believe you don't understand what the evidence is, the context in which it occurs, the methods used to analyse it, the mechanisms identified in the process, the validation of those mechanisms, the predictions used to validate the model, or the enormous scrutiny to which it has been put.

You still don't want to accept it do you? The methods, the mechanisms, the validation is about the STORY, which, .. oh darn, unfortunately for us happened over 4.2 billion years ago, and no one was around to verify it. What you guys are doing is exactly like the Mormons, you keep finding ways to verify the STORY between the evidence, .. this is why there are so many Mormons, because none of them were there when Joseph Smith came up with his B.S.
BUT, .. when Joseph Smith came up with his BS, there were all kinds of disagreements, and they even called out his BS. His closest friends called him an eccentric, even a lunatic and a trouble maker. But hey, you guys made sure your religion din't face such dangerous scrutiny, you guys just say: "It all happened millions and billion years ago, sloooowly, so slooowly that even today, by all the scientists watching can't see one species changing into another." Come on my friend, get real. If we evolved from lets say chimps, and other animals evolved from another species, after 4.2 billion years, with all the species present and evolving (so you guys claim) we would see a croc laying a croc-a-duck egg, just like anything else in this universe that changes into something else, we would see it. Oh yea, .. you see these fossils, .. here is a bird, and there is a lizard fossil, see the evidence now? How could you deny it, .. here, hold it in your hands, feel it, examine it, right there is proof of our story that lizards turned into birds.

That wouldn't normally matter, because the same insights underpinning evolution also underpin disciplines and technologies you probably don't question -- like epidemiology, bioinformatics, vaccinations, pest control, modern animal husbandry, and biochemical engineering.

Are you serious, .. I have been poisoned so many times that I have become immune to many restaurant- flu-vaccination or coffee poisons the Germans use on me, but I did not evolve into another species, .. no matter how much they wish I did.

Show me a chimp, or ANY animal in the process of changing into another species, not microscopic bacteria that only you can see because I am NOT allowed to buy any electronic microscope so I could show it in your faces. You Evolutionists have it all under control, but I rather die then bow down and accept your evil demonic skull and bones worshipping, grave robber religion. Take your word for it, .. that'll be the day!

However, unfortunately, due to pre-existing biases, you can't accept evolution, yet don't have the patience, humility, education or tolerance to learn what you need to understand it. So laziness and conceit make it more convenient to find excuses to deny evidence in this case, than admit ignorance, all the while accepting other science as given -- including all the sciences and technologies I mentioned above.

Yes, .. I accept science, and EVOLUTION is NOT science. And any claims like in the above I will ignore until I am allowed the freedom to purchase the technology needed to do my own experiments. You know very well that I, or the population in general are not allowed to purchase anything relating to like high powered electronic microscopes, or anything relating to creating our own free energy. Those who are allowed are carefully monitored, and should they reveal something on the contrary to Evolutionary-rules and doctrines with evidence, .. well that's why you have the One World SS Police force, right?

CBS, NBC, CNN News Reporting: "A man was shot to death with 43,000 rounds of bullets resisting arrest in the suspicion of building bombs and other things, .. which we cannot disclose at this time until we come up with a better story! There we see the FBI, CIA, and Terror organiza, .. er, .. I mean, .. Enforcement officers carrying out evidence, .. they say he had microscopes, computers and a gun in his house which were confiscated. Back to you Jane!"
"This is Jane on CBS Lying News Network, .. so Dick, you say he had computers and a microscope in his house? Oh my, .. thank God they got there in time, .. computers you say? What about that gun, we hear some neighbors saying it is just a water pistol his kids had, any news on that?"
"Yes Jane, he was very intelligent, an expert in disguises, .. it was actually a red-plastic rocket launcher we believe!"
Ignorant and lazy? How dare you? You think by constructing some fancy movie-props like the LHC sensors which prints out cheap 70's art depicting what you guys claim as smashed particles, bosons or whatever can fool someone with over two years of formal education? It would take 12 years of regular schooling and 4 years of heavy indoctrination before you could fool me. I can read, and what I read about claimed evidence on evolution and the BB is full of garbage, repeated by the media till the cows know nothing else.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2015 12:26:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/5/2015 9:43:08 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 10/25/2015 11:41:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/25/2015 11:20:01 PM, Evidence wrote:
OK, here is a 'single celled bacteria' and over here we have a human/man. THAT is observation.
Now the stories made up on how your religion BELIEVES this single celled bacteria EVOLVED by no will or plan of anyone or anything into this man here, is NOT from any evidence, or observation OK? : :
No, that's untrue, Ev. Firstly, the (unnamed) bacterium you're singling out is probably not an ancestor of man. It too is a descendant of a common ancestor, now long replaced by other species. There's no reason to suppose that any modern bacterium is an ancestor of any vertebrate.
Look, .. it is what your religion claims, it all started with a single celled bacteria. Now you claim you know that the single celled bacteria we have today is not what was there 4.2 billion years ago, fine, but I will not join your religion and study religious doctrines to accept how you guys know this?
Ev, the sad thing is that I know you're being sincere. Because you haven't had the necessary education in critical thought, you cannot tell the difference between transparent evidentiary reasoning accountable for its conclusions, that routinely admits ignorance and error, and conjectures claiming authority with no transparency in their derivation, routinely evading acknowledging ignorance and error.

Look, .. it's just like the Joseph Smith story, he had some golden tablets, that was fact.
No, it's better evidenced, more transparent, more accountable and more honest than that.

who's going to go back 4.2 BILLION years to verify your story huh? Who?
That's not how it works. Let me give you an example...

Mitochondria are little, double-membraned organelles (think mini-cells) sitting in large numbers inside the cells of more complex organisms (eukaryotes) like plants and humans, but not in the simplest organisms (prokaryotes) like bacteria. One of their key metabolic functions is to generate chemical energy by producing adenosine triphosphate (ATP) from more complex molecules.

For a long time, it was thought that mitochondria were produced as part of the cell's own reproductive processes -- and in a sense they are, but mitochondria have their own distinctive DNA. In humans, all mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother, which means it mutates much slower than DNA in the cell's nucleus.

This tells science some exciting things:

1) It's possible (now thought almost certain) that eukaryotes developed from prokaryotes by prokaryotes learning to live inside one another in symbiosis.
2) For this reason, it's possible that the first eukaryotes have not one, but two prokaryotic ancestors; and
3) A great deal about the changes in humanity and other species can be inferred by comparing nuclear and mitochondrial DNA.

Those insights didn't come to science from revelation, Ev -- they came from testing ideas and painfully admitting error.

You still don't want to accept it do you? The methods, the mechanisms, the validation is about the STORY, which, .. oh darn, unfortunately for us happened over 4.2 billion years ago, and no one was around to verify it.
Even if they were, one couldn't trust them. They'd have needed the skills to observe and measure reliably, and cultures lasting millions of years. They'd have to have survived some major cataclysms, and lived on a planet that didn't actually produce food they could eat.

So how does science manage it?

It's simple: you grossly under-estimate what can be done with skills you don't have. For example, the study of homologous protein structures (think DNA precursors) in nucleii and mitochondria shows common ancestry beyond all reasonable doubt. Essentially, if two species are doing similar things with similar organs, it turns out their DNA are similar in both the nucleii and the mitochondria. It's very easy for different DNA sequences to do the same job, and if that's what was found, it would pretty much eliminate common ancestry. But that's not what occurs -- it's the reverse. And the odds of that happening without common ancestry are infinitesimal -- like picking the same proton out of all of the protons in the visible universe, twice in a row.

So common ancestry can be confidently inferred even if we don't yet know what the ancestors were.

But you can't get that sort of confidence unless everyone is pulling toward common ethics of evidence, transparency, falsification, honesty and accountability.

If religion had those virtues, it'd be much further developed too.

That wouldn't normally matter, because the same insights underpinning evolution also underpin disciplines and technologies you probably don't question -- like epidemiology, bioinformatics, vaccinations, pest control, modern animal husbandry, and biochemical engineering.
Are you serious, .. I have been poisoned so many times that I have become immune to many restaurant- flu-vaccination or coffee poisons the Germans use on me, but I did not evolve into another species, .. no matter how much they wish I did.
I'm not sure how you got from what I wrote to what you read, other than by blind anger. I do not know how to heal your anger, except with suggestions you may be too self-satisfied to consider.

Show me a chimp, or ANY animal in the process of changing into another species
I think you mean something bigger than species, because speciation happens all the time.

You Evolutionists have it all under control
I'm an empiricist, not an evolutionist. I'd happily abandon my current understanding of evolution if empiricism falsified it. And while evolution supports my rejection of religious authority, I'd reject religious authority even if it seemed that humans were transplanted onto this planet. (And I mention this to show that I think religion has bigger problems than its inaccurate histories.)

However, unfortunately, due to pre-existing biases, you can't accept evolution, yet don't have the patience, humility, education or tolerance to learn what you need to understand it.
Yes, .. I accept science, and EVOLUTION is NOT science.
Define science please, and list for me the criteria by which you recognise scientific results outside your expertise.

Ignorant and lazy? How dare you?
Here's how you can show me I'm wrong: explain to me how it is that scientific disputes over abstract questions -- the formation of continents, evolution, relativity, atomic structures, DNA structure, big bang, climate change -- routinely converge on agreement. Explain also why religion nevertheless has terrible difficulty resolving its own abstract disputes, and must plead with believers instead to simply hold to traditional dogma.

If you can't explain that difference, it's not because the question hasn't crossed your mind. It's because you've failed to follow up and find out.
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 2:02:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/5/2015 12:26:19 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Ev, the sad thing is that I know you're being sincere. Because you haven't had the necessary education in critical thought, you cannot tell the difference between transparent evidentiary reasoning accountable for its conclusions, that routinely admits ignorance and error, and conjectures claiming authority with no transparency in their derivation, routinely evading acknowledging ignorance and error.

Look, I used to fix my own cars, but with all the complex electronics, I can't even fix my horn, and taking the steering wheal of looks like a nightmare, with all the electronic controls going to the stereo, the monitors like HUD displays and so on, I claim ignorance. BUT, push me and I will do it, there is NOTHING on this earth that any man can do that I can't. It be hard yes, but I am NOT ignorant in fixing a car, or even a jet engine if I put my mind to it.

In the same way I may be ignorant about biology and how the human or animal body functions, but tell me that it all popped out of a wet rock 4.2 billion years ago, and then telling me how the body works will prove this, sorry, but that magic trick I know well, all religions use it, only different ways. Just as there are many ways making someone disappear, but just because you can do magic, don't expect me to believe it actually happened, I don't care how complex the trick is, and yes, transparency is a big part of it. So is your story.

Look, .. it's just like the Joseph Smith story, he had some golden tablets, that was fact.
No, it's better evidenced, more transparent, more accountable and more honest than that.


WHAT IS? That a tadpole evolved over 4 billion years into a human? THAT is what we are talking about here, NOT that: "Mitochondria are little, double-membraned organelles (think mini-cells) sitting in large numbers inside the cells of more complex organisms (eukaryotes) like plants and humans, but not in the simplest organisms (prokaryotes) like bacteria. One of their key metabolic functions is to generate chemical energy by producing adenosine triphosphate (ATP) from more complex molecules."

This tells science some exciting things:

1) It's possible (now thought almost certain) that eukaryotes developed from prokaryotes by prokaryotes learning to live inside one another in symbiosis. :

Again, you are observing eukaryotes in animals correct? Where? Oh yea, here on Gods creation we call earth. Now take a molten lava and put it in space and wait, .. see what amazing bacteria just waiting to evolve into monkeys it will produce? Oh yes, you need time, .. hmm, .. OK, so let's create a computer simulation of this and from all the information we have on molten lava, let's see if this now cooling lava will create all that is necessary to have prokaryotes by eukaryotes live inside one another?

You still don't want to accept it do you? The methods, the mechanisms, the validation is about the STORY, which, .. oh darn, unfortunately for us happened over 4.2 billion years ago, and no one was around to verify it. : :
Even if they were, one couldn't trust them. They'd have needed the skills to observe and measure reliably, and cultures lasting millions of years. They'd have to have survived some major cataclysms, and lived on a planet that didn't actually produce food they could eat.

LOL, .. how convenient. So I should just trust your: "It happened, and here is the result" right?

So how does science manage it?

It's simple: you grossly under-estimate what can be done with skills you don't have. For example, the study of homologous protein structures (think DNA precursors) in nucleii and mitochondria shows common ancestry beyond all reasonable doubt. Essentially, if two species are doing similar things with similar organs, it turns out their DNA are similar in both the nucleii and the mitochondria. It's very easy for different DNA sequences to do the same job, and if that's what was found, it would pretty much eliminate common ancestry. But that's not what occurs -- it's the reverse. And the odds of that happening without common ancestry are infinitesimal -- like picking the same proton out of all of the protons in the visible universe, twice in a row.

More preaching.. Show me one species (we have millions, upon millions evolving every second) about to transition from one species into another, call me when that happens OK? I want to see it. Oh, and I don't care if it changes/mutates right before my eyes into another species, or lays an egg that is a completely different species!?

Here let me help you. Here is a V timeline, on one leg of the V we have a chimp, the other a human created in Gods image. Now since you say you have detailed, down to eukaryotes that we humans came by evolution, from the chimp swinging from the tree and sticking little sticks up his but, to me, a human sitting here front of my computer debating with you.
Now you see that V, it is coming together to a single point, now take all the information you have proving the monkey evolved into a man and focus it, microscopically if you wish to that millisecond the split happened. Tell me what you see?
Remember, going from top of the V, down to just before that moment, that millionth of a second in time (since you say you couldn't have been there,) so go from the two arms of the V down, right before you reach the MOMENT the V meets, where we still have man on one side, and monkey on the other leg, .. go down that previous second where the V touches, what is happening, in detail please?

Do you see a hairy beast loosing it's hair, and the next moment it is a man and couldn't mate with it's kind, or do you see a beast giving birth to a completely different species, .. what?

Yes, .. I accept science, and EVOLUTION is NOT science. : :
Define science please, and list for me the criteria by which you recognise scientific results outside your expertise.

Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Evolution: The systematic drive to make up millions and billions of years ago fantastic stories how these structures came into existence.

Here's how you can show me I'm wrong: explain to me how it is that scientific disputes over abstract questions -- the formation of continents, evolution, relativity, atomic structures, DNA structure, big bang, climate change -- routinely converge on agreement. :

what bull, .. science and BB evolution are always butting heads, or have, .. but your right, since science has been taken over by the Evolution Religion, you see less and less of this, and history reveals why? Religion rules the minds of men.

Explain also why religion nevertheless has terrible difficulty resolving its own abstract disputes, and must plead with believers instead to simply hold to traditional dogma.

They are working on that now, with the new Jesuit Pope and Rick Warren, soon there will not be disputes whatsoever. The entire world will agree and bow in unison.
I said this many times, but your religious one-track mindset does not allow you to look at it freely, but through their indoctrinations, that I am a scientist seeking and observing the world around me, to answer the Big Questions, like who am I and where did I come from. I have come to understand this by observation, it is who I am, not make up millions and billions of years ago stories how my mind evolved from a single celled bacteria, .. lol.

If you can't explain that difference, it's not because the question hasn't crossed your mind. It's because you've failed to follow up and find out. :

Because I know who I am, I can explain anything and everything, I just look to my Creator for the answers, for my mind is His mind, he gave it to me. Religion blinds peo
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 2:11:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/5/2015 12:26:19 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/5/2015 9:43:08 AM, Evidence wrote:

Ignorant and lazy? How dare you? : :

Hey Ruv, I didn't have room to mention this in that other post, but I was just kidding about the "how Dare you" part, .. but you are right, if it wasn't the Lords Spirit directing my answers I am ignorant and lazy, .. well maybe not really lazy, lazy, but limited to how much I can do. Rough upbringing and a continuous rough life you know. OK, . so lazy with an excuse, <smile>

Take care my friend.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau