I am unsure how to use the quote option properly. That is all. I apologize for the inconvenience. I will try my best to make the format easier. Maybe I'll go into that some day 1) I see. Very well. More on that later I suppose. Because I don't have a receptive audience 2) I am listening. Please feel free to explain. If you have a conscience, you have your answer as well. 3) My conscience does not necessarily tell me what is an absolute fact. KMA 4) That was rude. But not unexpected. Change what you will then. More to the point, seeing the term is meaningless from an evolutionist perspective, any behavior at all can be labelled subhuman, as it was in the Third Reich. 5) While I disagree with the views of the Third Reich, how is this a problem for you specifically? Is defeating the enemy not enough? Do your goals need an external source of validation? Again, you answered your own question 6) Yet you still have not answered the second question. Because I'm not going to be used by people like you who want to derail this thread. 7) In that case, how is this thread anything else but a "safe space" of sorts for your own catharsis? And that's a problem because...? •• It is a problem because whatever it is you believe is the explanation for human origin, I am sure it lacks absolute scientific evidence just as you've criticized evolution for. Yet some of you have claimed to be rejecting evolution based on science. In what way is your belief any more credible than evolution? Also, do you prefer your belief be accepted as fact instead? Exactly, which is why your question was retarded. 9) You seem angry. If this is upsetting you, you do not have to keep replying. However if you wish to continue defending your point, I encourage you to use that anger you may or may not be feeling. They don't suggest any such thing, obviously. That's just an inference you find it convenient to draw, for an obvious reason. 10) Then it may have been one of the other thread users who said that. My apologies. What is the obvious reason I would draw from such an inference? Please, you'd rather be dead 11) No, I would not. Is this a threat? Regardless you still have not given a proper answer. who the hell cares 12) Correct. You haven't got a clue as to how I view religion. 13) Then why don't you explain. Also, you did not answer the question. What I mean to say is precisely what I said. 14) Thank you for at least admitting this. Note: There was an issue with the number 8. The forum continued displaying the quote section.
If this proves to be true, it may not necessarily be a positive. What scientific evidence can you provide of this aside from the quotation? This quote is actually very interesting though.
I don't agree with communism, and it is true most would consider the Soviet Union was a terrible place to live, however what of Theist Saudi Arabia, Iran, Medieval Europe, Salem, Ancient Egypt, Babylon, American Exceptionalism/Manifest Destiny, to name a few examples? How does a lack of spirituality automatically equal atrocity and the suppression of what can be considered human rights? Do you propose a form of Sharia law or another Theistic alternative? Do you think it is right for people to believe in something that has no scientific evidence as you say is the case with evolution?
Those here of a highly spiritual persuasion have unfortunately continued choosing to avoid answering any questions of which rationalizing the answers can cause conflict with their beliefs. It is my thoughts that the following of what you may read on this thread should be taken into account. Also, it is strange none appear to be of the belief that spiritual matters are not entirely negated by the possibility of evolution.
Let us not forget this proposition by Cosmo, which none of the anti-evolutionists have answered properly. Thank you Cosmo for your input.
This I believe is the moment ChemEngineer realized he or she could no longer provide a scientifically based defense. Note the content, word choices, and use of all capital letters. It is clearly an emotionally charged response. Here was my previous post found on page 13 as quoted by ChemEngineer. Notice the bold done to the final sentence: Why would other theories not interest you? Wouldn't you want to learn the truth about humanity's origins? You want to disprove the theory of evolution so strongly, which I admit can be seen as reasonable, yet you yourself have no interest in other theories, or have another theory of your own. I don't understand.
"This is a problem because....?" To quote your previous method of response. In all seriousness though, why is what consenting adults do of any importance to you?
Lil Chemmy and the few others who play the fool in this thread and topic do not answer questions and in fact I have posed one simple question to each of them and NEVER received any answer EVER...that very simple question was: What is the alternate explanation for the diversity of life on Earth? They don't even have the gonads to say "God".
Precisely. I believe it may be because it would be too difficult to support that with absolute scientific evidence, for which they have accused evolution of lacking. Which initially seems reasonable, until the fact that they make an exception when it comes to placing religious explainations, that are also often taught as fact, under the same scrutiny.
This is a schematic diagram of human hemoglobin, a polypeptide consisting of 574 amino acid residues, in the levorotary form, precisely arranged, and precisely folded, to enclose four atoms of ferrous iron in four separate heme groups. Darwinists claim that random mutations, followed by the magic of *selection* assembled this magnificent molecule step by incremental step. In other words, 1 of 20 possible amino acids, all levorotary, combined with the next amino acid in a peptide bond, as opposed to the alternative and equally likely non-peptide bond, 574 successive times, and folding neatly along the way. Mathematically this is 1/20 x 1/2 x 1/2 1/20 x 1/2 x 1/2 ... 574 times in total. The overall probability of this process is less than one chance in 10 to the 1,050 power. Evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, has categorically claimed that "the maximum probability allowed in evolution is 1 in 10 to the 20th power." He defines "impossible" as "1 chance in 10 to the 40th power." Next, the diagram of a NEC monitor: Useful. Functional. Clearly the product of intelligent design. Note the similarity to this far more complex diagram, of a single living cell: Even with this diagram, nobody on earth can build this cell in the most sophisticated biochemstry lab on earth. It represents a cell which is functional, useful to its host organism, and far beyond the NEC monitor, the cell can feed (energize) itself, repair itself, adapt, or modify itself, as no NEC monitor can do, and reproduce itself, as no machine on earth can do. To pretend that water dripping on rocks eventually produced humans is the height of the fallacy of evolution.
Please answer tecoyah's question with the same level of thought and references.You have actually done a good job of supporting intelligent design. However this may not fully rule out evolution. Merely that an intelligent designer may be responsible for programming cells and manipulating life on Earth. Though I hope to see more evidence on this same level. Wonderfully done. Personally, I don't care much for Richard Dawkins. He is far too close-minded for my taste. Here is tecoyah's question: What is the alternate explanation for the diversity of life on Earth?
Good luck with that. Every time I've asked that question in this thread the answer was "Don't know, don't care."
The Creationists on this site are really really low grade. The creationist mafia on this forum isn't even entertaining. They are so predictable and boring. They need to up their game.
Trying to derail the thread is a violation. Unfortunately the moderators never seem to mind violations by their fellow Leftists. The subject is "fallacies of evolution." Try sticking to the subject, for a change. I know, it's hard. "We can be fooled." - Carl Sagan, in Cosmos, page 125 "Sex was invented." - Carl Sagan, in Cosmos, page 338 (Pretty clever, that scientist Carl Sagan. I wrote to his publisher, pointing out dozens of errors in his books. Carl responded to me in a letter, asking me to buy his latest book. I sold his letter on eBay for $125. And never bought one of his books. Why, when you can check them out at the library, instead of further enriching that condescending, agnostic liberal.)
Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations 1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all. 2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life. 3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials. 4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation. 5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences. The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies. At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown. However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying, not coin flipping. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
Why would someone pay $125 for a letter? Strange. Regardless, it is hard to stay on that topic because finding proper answers (such as the well detailed example you have just posted) from those of you who reject the theory of evolution is essentially impossible on any other website, forum or thread. If you are as truly commited to whatever it is you believe in, use your intelligence against those, including myself, who doubt you. Fight to end this "pissing contest" once and for all. If you prefer, post on my thread. I will give the possibly liberal moderators my consent as well. Please feel free to notify them. Note: With respect for the rules of this website, if I am in fact truly commiting a violation , I urge any of the moderators reading this post to put aside your bias and do what has to be done. Thank you.
I know. It was much the same response they've given me. But they are convinced they know some sort of answer, thus as long as the posts feature genuine scientifically backed information, I have no issue hearing them out.
If the object,in this case letter, is important to someone it has value,especially to collectors. But,this isn't the first time Chemi has told that "story'. He claims that he " wrote to his publisher, pointing out dozens of errors in his books"; yet never says what any of the so-called errors are. Instead he resorts to a personal attack on Sagan wth a side order of quote mining. For him it's... business as ususal.
I would recommend that when faced with a Gish Gallop, start at the first point raised and respond only to that until it is settled and then move onto the next and so on. You are not going to be able to respond in detail to every point but, that is the point of their Gish Gallops, to bury you in having to explain detail and nuance of each point. Make them focus, it kills them.
So, basically what you did here is to say, here is some difficult science that some clever people worked out, I don't understand, I know that many other people won't understand it and if anyone tries to explain why it is good evidence then they will get bogged down in trying to do so with detail and nuance and anyway, I'll just gallop onto another subject in another three posts. Fortunately, for rational people your personal credulity will not have any effect on doing real science except in the realm of the politics that you want to impose upon it via the state.
