WhatshallIcallmyself

Joined

• started 1 topics
• posted 369 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by WhatshallIcallmyself

• 
  47

  Evolution is a Fact #37 - Testicles

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  take a look at the back of your tv/entertainment centre.

  a mass of power and signal cables connect the various pieces of equipment in very specific ways.

  imagine you wanted to switch the locations of your satellite receiver and your dvd player.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "Do you really believe the reproductive system of living things came about by itself and then merged to improve itself?" - Vidqun

  Nobody believes that. Except creationists of course.

  "By the way, man with the most advanced laboratories, cannot replicate a sperm or egg cell, much less a gonad. If they could, the need for fertility clinics would become something of the past" - Vidqun

  What has that got to do with this discussion? Evolution is not reliant on what humans can or cannot do. That should be obvious really...

  
  
• 
  114

  Evidence for a Young Earth

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "Take this example for instance" - Perry

  Here we are talking about evolution or geology and there you are linking us to a journal editor who is worried about the state of pharmaceutical research.

  Do you not realise that in one fell swoop you have both shown exactly how well peer review works (the editor is openly stating there is a problem) and that you think pharmaceutical research is something relevant to this conversation. You are meant to be arguing against, not for!

  "How is the average person supposed to know which half is true and which half isn't ?" - Perry

  You rely on the experts in whatever field is relevant to the question at hand. The consensus amongst the scientific community is what counts. And let me make it clear to you that this consensus is not reached by sitting down and debating the "evidence". A consensus is established when numerous avenues of research all interconnect, mutually supporting each other and demonstrating that the underlying idea is sound.

  
  
• 
  114

  Evidence for a Young Earth

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "People interpret those facts differently, plain and simple." - Perry

  People can only interpret facts if they are aware of all the other facts that go with the initial fact. This is where creationists diverge from scientists. The scientist interprets a set of related facts and the conclusion is drawn from where all the evidence leads whereas the creationist will interpret certain facts whilst ignoring all those that refute their desired conclusion.
  

  "The tendency is to attack anothers interpretation of the facts and call that interpretation not science, psuedo science, fairy tale etc.," - Perry

  If the conclusion is drawn from a limited data set that supports the conclusion whilst ignoring everything else that disagrees then yes, that is not science etc... If you claim to be a scientist and behave in that manner (Henry Morris et al...) then you will rightly be called on that.
  

  
  "when in fact many times interpretation, especially theoretical interpretation, is a process of the mind and not a falsifiable conclusion." - Perry

  Then it isn't science.... Stop pretending it is.... Science has to be falsifiable at all levels or it isn't science. I can write that last sentence in capitals, in bold, with a lovely background highlight if you are struggling to understand that simple concept.

  
  
  
• 
  114

  Evidence for a Young Earth

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "Many scientists are skeptical of evolution and a number publicly believe in a literal 6-Day Creation. Many more likely do dissent from the standard Materialistic paradigm, but suppress it due to job discrimination."

  All scientists are sceptical of everything, not just evolution; that is what makes a scientist successful and is what ensures any nonsense is quickly filtered out. That is, in essence, the scientific method. Anyone trained in a field of science understands this well due to the learning that has taken place on the road to their qualification i.e. you don't just learn about a subject.

  What a scientist believes is irrelevant. They are free to believe what they like but the work they do (science) is based on the scientific method and therefore is removed from personal beliefs (something a trained persons knows...).

  Therefore we can see that assertions of job discrimination due to personal beliefs are nonsense because if someone is working as a scientist and working correctly as per the scientific method then their personal beliefs are completely removed from their work. If they want to test those beliefs using the scientific method then, again, there will be no issue. Problems arise when people what to ignore the scientific method and have their beliefs accepted as scientific truths without the usual hassle of actually having to work to show how you arrive at those conclusions.

  
  
• 
  54

  God's Word and Modern Man

  by TheLiberator in

  1. social
  2. humour

  i have drawn the conclusion that when god speaks, he is using the language and the concepts of the time.

  he is not revealing a new scientific understanding when he speaks.

  that would be distracting from the point being made.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  What is the end result of arguing about which religion is correct or which interpretation of a particular religion is correct?

  What is the end result of following the scientific method to understand the word around us?

  I know which one I would rather spend my limited time on...
• 
  160

  Beliefs About What Caused the Universe

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.

  whatever begins to exist had a cause.

  therefore the universe had a cause.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "Bollocks (as Cofty often says)" - tornapart

  Adam and Eve and the global flood, to name just 2 things we know empirically aren't true... And without those 2 things the whole premise collapses. Any further discussion is tantamount to arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin head i.e. pointless.

   

  Although you are probably right that some aren't in a panic because I doubt they care about reality. 
• 
  160

  Beliefs About What Caused the Universe

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.

  whatever begins to exist had a cause.

  therefore the universe had a cause.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "If you were walking in the woods and found a large wooden carved artwork in the shape of a peacock with some doodle bugs crawling around on it. What would be the simplest explanation to explain its existence?

  A. The unconscious doodle bugs did it?

  B. A conscious person did it?

  The doodle bugs are far simpler than a man, but are not the simplest explanation." - Perry

  We have seen people carving things and we have seen peacocks and we understand that people create art. Therefore when we see all of this together it is logical to conclude a conscious person did it.

  No one has seen a god or witnessed a divine creation or indeed have any need of this type of explanation to explain what is around us. Therefore you are committing a logical fallacy by concluding that logically a divine being is behind all we see.

  It is, unfortunately, becoming very obvious that you do not understand the meaning of the words you are using in the context you are using them. More, your argumentation is confused (as seen with your doodle bug comment above), your logic is flawed (numerous logical fallacies in virtually every post where you mention logic) and it is clear that from your copy and pastes that you do not understand the science behind some of those things you post (they actually contradict what you are positing rather than validating it).
• 
  160

  Beliefs About What Caused the Universe

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.

  whatever begins to exist had a cause.

  therefore the universe had a cause.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "Once you accept a cause beyond our space/time universe Occams razon doesn't apply. The simplest explanation is that space and time were manipulated as opposed to waiting around for 14 billion years." - Perry

  Why doesn't Occams Razor apply? Manipulated by what though? If you assume a conscious body then you have not chosen the simplest explanation and have explained nothing yet again and have left yourself with even more to explain than you began with...
• 
  27

  Hi everyone!

  by cognac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  was just listening to a song that made me think of the jws so thought i'd say hi and see how everyone is.

  i'm doing ok. kids are fine.

  i'm good, making tons of friends, very successful in my career, bla bla bla.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  This is my favourite song of the moment. Every time it is played on R2 there are always texts being read out about how they either hate it or love it. A true Marmite song!
• 
  23

  Evolution is a Fact #2 - DNA Functional Redundancy

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in the first thread in this series we looked at how the same protein molecule can be assembled by many different sequences of amino acids.. we took the example of cytochrome c and saw that there are many times more possible sequences than atoms in the known universe.

  however the sequences in humans and chimps are identical, and as we look at species less closely related to us by evolution the more differences we find.

  this is very compelling evidence for common ancestry.. in this post we are going to look more closely at the dna code behind those amino acid sequences.. the "language" of dna is made up of just 4 "letters" - a,c,g and t.. sequences of letters are read off in groups of 3 called codons.. acggcctcgaatgccttc would be read as acg gcc tcg aat gcc ttc.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  Okay is a human more closely related to a cat or a dog? - slimboyfat

  Cats and dogs share a common ancestor from around 65 million years ago whereas the common ancestor that links us to them is much further back. Therefore they are equally related to us.

  It is worth understanding that when our lines diverged there were no cats, dogs or humans. Our common ancestor looked nothing like a cat, dog or human. Similarly when the cat and dog ancestor diverged it was not yet a cat or dog as we would recognise such.