I just assumed that Stephenmyers was a sock puppet!
Posts by Caedes
-
315Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman inatheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
-
-
Caedes
-
233
Number of Muslims protesting London terrorist attack = ZERO. Number of Muslims protesting forced Mosque closure in France = HUNDREDS
by kpop inso it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
-
-
Caedes
LUHE,
Why hate? Does that help?
Interesting that the muslims who are protesting (despite the claims of the OP) are not protesting in the right way, perhaps it is time to look at what you really object to.
I would rather that terrorists were punished for their crimes.
-
233
Number of Muslims protesting London terrorist attack = ZERO. Number of Muslims protesting forced Mosque closure in France = HUNDREDS
by kpop inso it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
-
-
Caedes
Above, muslims protesting the recent terror attack in London.
It is possible to condemn terrorism, condemn Islam for being a horrible religion and still not wish to kill people just because of their religion or subscribe to the thought that the world would be better off without muslims.
-
205
Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
by towerwatchman inmathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
-
-
Caedes
Apologize for the amount of time it took to find it. It is from "Evolution A Theory In Crisis" by Michael Denton. His source is ‘Dayhoff Atlas of Protein Structure and Function [1972 edition]’.
That book isn't peer reviewed science and wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone who cares about the veracity of their statements.
It is not that simple. It is estimated that it takes 10x10^21 mutations to get five codons to mutate in the right order to fold in the right form to accomplish the function.
I have already explained the basics of how evolution actually works and why it works to eliminate harmful mutations, if you are going to keep on stating the same things and ignoring the replies then the other posters who are calling you a troll are right.
But that is not what we see. The difference between a cyclostome and fish [75%], amphibian [81%], bird [78%], marsupial [76%] and mammal [73%]. Notice mammals are closer to cyclostome than a fish. What this leads to is that all living things appeared at the same time.
I am only interested in hard scientific data not creationist flim flam.
They seem to all have died in one cataclysmic event.
Unfortunately for you I studied geology and you couldn't be more wrong, I live not far from the jurassic coast, fossils are very common there. Perhaps you could come and point out those fossil rabbits because I (and everyone else who has ever actually studied fossils) have never found one.
You should do yourself a favour and actually read some proper reference books on geology and fossils because you clearly know nothing about the subject. Do you really think that scientists just make up things, do you know how the scientific method works and how peer review works? Do you know what I mean by empirical data, falsifiability or reproducability? Do you know what scientists mean by hypothesis and theory?
Since Natural Selection has become an all-purpose explanation of anything and everything, it becomes an explanation of nothing.
Really? What makes you think you are remotely qualified to make that statement?
If it was transitional the feathers would be half way between scales to feathers, but it is not.
Feathers didn't evolve from scales, do some research.
Lecomte du Noüy believed in the supernatural and even if he believed in evolution his hypotheses were roundly discounted by the scientific community of his day.
-
43
Atheism would not appeared if …
by venus in· if religions were immune to division.
· if scriptures were immune to scientific errors.
· if religious leaders were immune to hypocrisy.
-
-
Caedes
Science may not be in the business of making wild suggestions based on nothing more than hearsay and speculation, but it's far from unheard of! I agree that science uncovers truths man knows little of, yet it's naive to say it's not political and bull headed at times.
I would prefer the word supersensible.
There is nothing sensible about believing in things for which you have no empirical evidence.
Yes, it would be naïve to say that science is not political and bull headed at times, that would be why I didn't say it! It may not be unheard of that individual scientists go off the rails but science as a whole is self correcting unlike religion which has had to be dragged kicking and screaming along with every cultural change that has ever happened.
-
17
Can we support Russian government's ban?
by intropist in글쓴이: 류비 / 시간: 목, 03/30/2017 - 14:48. .
hi, i want to leave my personal opinion on the matter of russian government's banning on the activity of jehovah's witnesses in their territory.
i think it's more or less important because bearing a certain opinion is related with the quality of life.
-
-
Caedes
I would never support a ban on people being free to choose their own religion, it doesn't matter if the religion is wrong or harmful, adults have the right to choose for themselves what they do. I would support anything that prevents people forcing their religious beliefs on others and that would include children.
-
315
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman inatheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
-
-
Caedes
When discussing worldviews Atheism comes up unique. It seems that many want to be under the umbrella of Atheism but do not agree on its definition. Atheism is affirming the nonexistence of deity.
What makes you think that you get to define what atheism means? The reason I am an atheist is because nobody has shown me one scrap of empirical evidence for a god or gods, I have not seen or heard anything that makes me think that the claims of theists hold any merit whatsoever. You are welcome to show me some evidence if you think you have something.
I would also disagree with your statement that atheism is unique, personally as a rational human I accept that theism covers a wide variety of positions from people who claim to speak to god, know that he exists, believe s/he/it exists, think that on the balance of probabilities god does exist all the way through to not sure/ vaguely spiritual, I don't think it is up to me to define the meaning for those people other than a belief in god. So tell me where do you sit in the theism spectrum?
Now you on the other hand don't seem to have read or understand the wide variety of positions that atheists hold, I would say that my position is probably common to most atheists and that my definition would be accepted by most as well.
If you are going to attempt to redefine terms to suit your bias then you should expect people to disagree with you. Even other theists (see below) can point out the mistakes you are making if you can't bring yourself to take advice from an atheist.
https://carm.org/mistakes-christians-make-when-dialoguing-atheists
-
43
Atheism would not appeared if …
by venus in· if religions were immune to division.
· if scriptures were immune to scientific errors.
· if religious leaders were immune to hypocrisy.
-
-
Caedes
How about dark matter? Neither can be seen, felt or measured.
CS, Dark matter has been measured, indirectly through its gravitational effect on matter. Science isn't in the business of making wild suggestions based on nothing more than hearsay and speculation, that would be the job of people who believe in the supernatural. Yes, the definition of your god is probably that it is supernatural.
-
315
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman inatheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
-
-
Caedes
Atheism is not a statement that there is no god, it is a statement that no theist has provided empirical evidence of a god or gods.
Since your definition is flawed then so is the rest of your OP.
-
205
Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
by towerwatchman inmathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
-
-
Caedes
You keep on using those figures and still haven't actually stated a source for them, if you had any understanding of basic scientific principles you would understand why they are being dismissed.
However you are looking at one protein, and it is being coded by a ubiquitous gene. What that means is that it is coding for a very basic function, one that is common to all life.
Since there are lots of ways of functionally coding for this protein (as I mentioned before) then if life were unrelated then you would expect that there would be a wide variety in how it is coded.
What we actually see is that it is coded in a very similar way and that the small differences reflect how related any two organisms are. The more closely related the the two organisms are then the coding will be increasingly similar.
if the proportion of difference between creatures is close to the proportion of difference between the cytochrome C in each.
It is.
All species are transitional in regards to moving along a particular branch of the evolutionary tree. The first part of your sentence shows that you still have no real understanding of how fossilisation works or how evolution works. I'll sum up the key points, fossilisation is rare, fossilisation of rare species is even rarer. The evolution of species happens to groups of organisms not individuals, for a strong selection mechanism to be happening then lots of that group are dieing and a small number are surviving. So we wouldn't expect to see a lot of fossilisation but we do see it.
Let's assume your figures for the differences between man and chimp are correct for a moment, so what you are saying is that we need a method to sieve out all the useless mutations that are harmful. Let's then look at the title of Darwin's book On the origin of species by means of natural selection. What does the second part of that title tell you about what happens? That's right, the successful genes are naturally 'selected' (by not being in a dead organism) so there you have your method to sieve out the harmful mutations. Then all you need is a population breeding like rabbits and you have evolution.
Seem to be going against ‘evolution by natural selection’, and ‘survival of the fittest.’
No, we are merely fit enough to procreate in this environment in exactly the same way that dinosaurs were fit enough to procreate in theirs and that sea slugs are fit enough to procreate in theirs. You are misunderstanding what Darwin meant.
No I have a source = cytochrome c.
No, the source of your figures would be the source of your information, the book, the study, the dataset. You could be plucking those figures from the air since you have not stated where you got them and I have no way of checking that your facts are correct.
Where I got the data I am not 100% sure,
I doubt your figures and it is up to you to categorically state your source if you don't want people to reject your figures out of hand. Since you cannot state 100% then I would assume that you have the figures wrong. You don't even state what the percentages are actually of.
That is funny because I have never met one that does claim we are 'improving' The example I was referring to were Lamprey. As I have stated already evolution happens along evolutionary branches and all organisms evolve down into species (there is no across by definition and you can't travel back up the evolutionary tree since that would be going back in time).
It is all speculation with a dash of imagination.
No, you are incorrect, modern birds do not show the reptilian features shown in primitive birds like archeopterix and archeopterix shows bird like features not seen in true reptiles. That is not speculation, you can see the fossils for yourself.
there are lots of different ways to code for Cytochrome C ( a huge number10^93)
Someone actually measured that?
Yes, would you like the source of that information?
Again it is not radically different. I would expect radical cytochrome c difference between a carp and horse to a carp and a bullfrog. But they are both 13%.
They aren't radically different because they are related! Your figures are still incorrect!
The data in the post is real. No one argues the numbers, they all seem to argue the interpretation.
I am arguing with your numbers or at least with how you are presenting them. It may be that you have misunderstood them or have got them from a non-scientific source (traditionally this makes up around 100% of creationist 'science' writing in my experience)