It would be really nice if Nota had the courtesy to respond to threads they started...
Abaddon
JoinedPosts by Abaddon
-
40
OK, so let's test the science advocates out here.............
by NotaNess ini'll start it off, then someone else give them a different challenge if you can think of any.. please give definitive examples that by evolution, a species has changed into something else.
give two separate findings by scientists, and it can't include any comments like "so we believe", "so we conclude that", or "the evidence shows that there could have been".....the wts has those copyrighted.. try and give un-doctored photographic proof, where possible, etc.
by the way the hominid skulls and the like will not be accepted, transition has never been proven, i don't think, just that they are different, and scientists "believe", they are pre-homo-sapiens.. i'm not saying you won't have examples, we just want you to walk the talk.
-
-
-
41
Creationism hiding in plain sight
by FireNBandits ina friend pointed out to me that "theistic evolution" is, in essence, no different than intelligent design.
both postulate a creator that is behind creation.
both use the words "creation" and "creator.
-
-
Abaddon
Theistic evolution is the idea it happened exactly like science says it did, but god 'blew on the dice' of chance and steered things to its intended goal. At least that's my understanding of the definition.
I'm not one myself, but I often wonder why Creationists bother with all the bronze-age goatherd ideas about how things happened. Logically speaking, god could make the world any damn way it wanted, and if the evidence says evolution, then the goatherd is obviously mistaken.
Of course I know why many do cling to the literalistic stuff. If you make everything that simple, obvious, and black and white, it's really easy to cling to a silly Creation belief as if you insist that is right, you can also insist the moral code and beliefs you take from the same text are right.
It's silly; as has been pointed out, using the fruits of science most of the day, then saying it's wrong if the goatherd says something different. But it is easy and satisfying. Theological heroin.
As for such ideas belonging in school; in a religous education class where various beliefs re being compared, fine. How on earth are you going to teach it in a science class? What facts can you impart? How can you do a practical experiment (or lab work I think Americans call it)?
The whole ID movement is a trojan horse for largely Christian interference with science curriculums, as Creationtism in science class is now a hard sell even in Chickenshit Falls, Bulah County, Kentuky. Check you 'The Wedge' on Wikipedia.
-
93
How the Religious View Homosexuality
by serotonin_wraith infor people who are still religious, what are your views on gays?.
for me (an atheist) it goes against my own morality to think of them as sinners or somehow doing wrong, and yet in the bible it teaches that it is wrong.
it's one of the main reasons i could never go along with the jws.. i'm curious how religious people address this issue.
-
-
Abaddon
Will gay dolphins burn in hell?
Do bad associations pevert bison?
Once again religious people of a certain type obsessing about sex and missing the love. Once again the fervert literalism of those who worship a book, even when it's perfectly obvious any god worthy of worship wouldn't condemn homosexuality like the Bible says god does. Once again the blinkered attitudes of those who cannot imagine that 'God' means anything other than the Bibe god, as all the others are made up.
jgnat
The JW's are utterly dependent on the bible to impose bondage.
Now I can impose bondage without any help from the Bible...
-
34
OK, so let's test the Creationism advocates out here.............
by 5go ini responce to this post .
i'll start it off, then someone else give them a different challenge if you can think of any.. please give definitive examples that by evolution, a species has changed into something else.
give two separate findings by scientists, and it can't include any comments like "so we believe", "so we conclude that", or "the evidence shows that there could have been".....the wts has those copyrighted.. try and give un-doctored photographic proof, where possible, etc.
-
-
Abaddon
Qcmbr
I can't decide whether you are totally missing the point or beilngdeliberately obtuse in an amusing fashion, knowing what the point is.
5go
God could be using evolution. I don't think so hence I am an atheist but if I were to believe in a deity again. I would still know evolution is how he did it.
I too am stumbled by the faithless ones who think god is incapable of using evolution to make the world as it is. They blaspheme against the Most High... anyway, what we all really wan to know is why is god the most high, and who is his dealer? Andwhat did Frank mean when he sang 'Doobie doobie do'?
integ
What Almost asked for please. Not only a reference listing WHO these reputable scientists are, but a definition of 'reputable' too whilst you are at it. Torquemada was probably considered a reputable theolgian by some...
Notaness
I am curious about your replies on the thread you started that this thread is parodying. I am sure you get the point that is being made and have to ask, why do you ask for evidence of evolution you are unable to supply in support of your own belief system?
-
29
The Spanking Hall?
by WTWizard inchildren in the jehovah's witness religion really have it hard.
to compare, look at other churches.
most of them have sunday school, and this is geared to children that are not able to really comprehend the deeper things.
-
-
Abaddon
A reactive swat to an appropriate portion of the anatomy is natural in the right circumstances; I mean, like the "grab by clothes and swat ass" reaction a small child bolting into aroad gets.
Premeditated spanking (which I did do in the past) is now just weird to me. For me premeditated spanking would not be a choice; there are far more effective ways of discipline, although they normally require more thought and effort than premeditated spanking.
-
19
Proof of Fake Spirit Medium on Most Haunted
by Sirona ini didn't know about this scandal until the last day or two.. derek acorah who stars as a spirit medium on most haunted, was set up recently.
basically a skeptic on the show made sure that before he visited a venue for psychic investigation, he was given fake names of people who were supposedly attached to the property but who are now dead.. the fake names were anagrams of "derek lies" and "faker derek" etc.. he pretended to have a trance and said these false names as though they were coming from the spirit world.. here is the "proof":.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw_onn8odys&mode=related&search.
-
-
Abaddon
Sirona, you act as though there are verfied genuine spirit mediums...
Here is a magikal incantation to help you resolve the quandry.
Horse, cart... cart, horse
Repeat three times daily; dancing around naked and waving burning sage (yup I know what it means) whist you chant are optional, but I've heard you're a babe so go for ...
-
40
OK, so let's test the science advocates out here.............
by NotaNess ini'll start it off, then someone else give them a different challenge if you can think of any.. please give definitive examples that by evolution, a species has changed into something else.
give two separate findings by scientists, and it can't include any comments like "so we believe", "so we conclude that", or "the evidence shows that there could have been".....the wts has those copyrighted.. try and give un-doctored photographic proof, where possible, etc.
by the way the hominid skulls and the like will not be accepted, transition has never been proven, i don't think, just that they are different, and scientists "believe", they are pre-homo-sapiens.. i'm not saying you won't have examples, we just want you to walk the talk.
-
-
Abaddon
Notaness
I think I must be a 'science advocate', although the loaded language you employ makes me cringe .
Please give definitive examples that by evolution, a species has changed into something else.
Okay, here you go - and all this involves species alive today, by the way. This material is 1st year evolutionary biology so I am a little surprised you don't know it.
Putting yourself forward (as you are doing) as an informed non-science advocate (loaded language is a two edged sword ) I would think being adequately informed about what science actually does advocate as rather important... unless of course you have learnt about science from non-science advocates, in which your science education lacking rigour, detail or reliability is no surprise. This is nothing personal; we have a revolving door fitted to this forum specifically for Creationists et. al., as we have such a high through-put of the poor dears, and they have unfortunately saddled you with a stereotype based upon their behaviour and knowledge. Sorry if you don't fit the 'profile'; I will be delighted when/if you prove otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
That gives three examples; the Lesser-Black backed/Herring Gull ring, one concerning Salamanders, and another concerning Warblers.
More on ring species here;
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
... and here;
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml
This should fulfil your specified standards of evidence; at least two separate scientists, photographic evidence, no hominid skulls. Please be very clear about what reasons you dismiss this evidence for when you reply.
On a this point (hominid skulls), may I ask you how many years study of the biological sciences have lead you to concluded that you and a political-religious lobby group centred in the American mid-West are right, and the rest of science are wrong? You sound very... what were the words you used... 'so sure of' 'your beliefs, I was wondering on what basis you were so sure.
Do you actually believe scientists are that stupid? Or do you credit the 'evolution theory under crisis' bullshit put forth by the Creationist/IDiots lobby? Or is there some seminal paper by a non-science avocado-ate you would like to bring to the discussion and clue us in on why you can dismiss evidence so casually?
Ring species are where an organism has spread geographically, often so two directions of dispersal end up meeting after travelling round a geographical feature in separate directions, or even the entire globe. The original species has been subjected to variation in its geographical spread, to the extent that when it meets itself again it cannot hybridise, being a different species.
Yet if you take examples from locales quite close to each other, they can hybridise.
It's like;
Europe Asia N America Europe
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
The species started as 1 in Europe, and has spread round the world to Europe from the opposite direction, but has become 20 at that point. A 1 could interbreed with a 4 or 5, a 4 or 5 with a 10, etc., but 1 and 20 cannot interbreed and are two separate species. Ring species show evolutionary transition between species based upon geographical separation, a good illustration of the chronological transition normally causing speciation.
I'm not saying you won't have examples, we just want you to walk the talk. Support your claims. You're so sure of the science and evolution. Now bring it.
"we just want?"? Is that a royal we, have you got MPD , or are you typing for a larger group of people?
I love this kind of discussion so much. Sadly, although the examples I am give are rock-solid, experience tells me that bronze-age allegory advocates tend to move the goalposts. Having typically not been aware that speciation is easily demonstrable, when they find out it is, they will simply carry on believing what they already believed in by changing their standards of disproof rather than examining what they believe in the face of clear evidence they are wrong. I will be truly happy if Notaness proves me wrong.
Notaness, could you answer four questions for me? I've responded to you, I hope you'll return the courtesy.
- Why do you limit the power of Almighty God by insisting a creative myth invented by a bronze-age goatherd is true, and denying that god has the ability to make the world come about as we see it by any variety of methods including evolution? You say you believe in evolution to an extent, but obviously not to the extent of believing in speciation, yet that's like saying you believe in internal combustion to an extent, but don't believe petroleum vapour is flammable. Is it becaue you believe the Bible is literal?
- If the speculation by scientists about extinct forms being related to each other on account of the signs of forms transitioning from one to another in the fossil record is so massively wrong, how come when genetic techniques were developed to study the inter-relatedness of organisms, the 'mistaken' scientific claims regarding the relatedness of extinct forms based on claudistics (study of bones) turned out to be verified by genetics most of the time?
- What role does random mutation play in evolution? This is a trick question, as most often Creationists et. al. are spectacularly wrong in their understanding of it. Please use your own words.
- In the above example of ring species, say the Herring Gull one, please tell me where the transitional species are, and how distinguishable they are from the species they ransform from and too. Answering this may well reveal to you how much rubbish you have been mislead by, as 'there are no transitional species' is such a popular Creationist/IDot rallying cry it is seldom given scrutiny by those using it.
Please realise I am replying to you in the same spirited and confident tone you used yourself. Time for you to walk the talk (origins).
-
44
Do You Think The GOVERNMENT Should Require You To Wear A Seatbelt?
by minimus inin new hampshire, the council that has power to make laws happen, voted against the mandatory seat belt law.
it appears that seat belt use will remain voluntary.
do you believe the government should require such laws??
-
-
Abaddon
It depends on the country's health system.
In countries with publically funded health care available free at the point of access, wearing seabelts can save a lot of medical costs, allowing public funds to be spent better elsewhere.
Thus it is reasonable to make it law to wear seatbelts (or motorcycle helmets). Althouugh by not wearing a seatbelt they don't increase the chance of direct harm to others, they indirectly take resources from others who need it.
In countries where there is no real public health system and people typically pay for their own medical costs, the government has no incentive to protect the people who don't wear seatbelts, as their poor choice doesn't cost the government anything.
Unlike DUI, not wearing a seatbelt will not cause direct harm, nor will it cause indirect harm as the injured non-seatbelt wearer will be paying for their own costs (or their insurance company will).
I do think any civilised country should fine people up the wazoo for not having safely secured childen in vehicles; their parents might value the liberty of not wearhing a seatbelt more than their face, but it's not fair they make that choice for a child.
-
46
If Creationism is true explain races.
by DeViL DriVeR 76 inso the bible speaks of how multiple languages came to be in babylon with the tower of babel, you all know the story.
ok so thats the bibles view on languages but what about races?
how are some people light skin others dark?
-
-
Abaddon
Mad Tiger
Your answers show you to be fairly uninformed about evolution. Don't take this personally - I've been discussing evolution with people for a decade and I can pretty much tell how much someone knows about the subject from what they say; I don't mean to suggest I assume if they don't agree with me they know nothing, but rather, their lack of knowledge and misconceptions about the subject are manifest in how they talk about it.
There are no transitional forms in historical evidence to substantiate any evolution.
See? This is probably the most repeated literalistic creationist lie. You may not know it is a lie, but it is. Note I say 'literalistic creationist'; many people have a belief in a god that fits in with evolution. How? They assume modern science has a better idea than a bronze-age goatherd, and also assume if Genesis was metaphorical (as you cannot prove Creation or the Flood this is a fair assumption), then there's no reason god couldn't do it whatever way they liked. You limit god's power!
Now, go read Talk Origins, and stop repeating lies, be it because you're unwittingly repeating them or whatever other reason; here's some brand new evidence of transitional forms that won't be in the Talk Origins archive yet;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6683261.stm
As regards lactose intolerance; it is a pet subject, as my fiance is.
You seem to be unaware that even those without adult lactose tolerance (the majority of the human population; it's only the mutants who can digest it) have lactose tolerance as an infant, and that it is lost naturally unless one is carrying the mutated gene. Your pattern of symptoms suggests you might actually have some degree of genotypical lactose tolerance but became intolerant due to diet, coeliac disease, giardia, or some other factor. Alternately you may have become more sensitive to an allergy to dairy products due to stress or other environmental factors that have now mitigated.
Sadly, from experience if you follow the patten of behaviour shown most often by Creationists in these threads, it is most likely you will decide that your personal interpretation of a allegorical fairy story told by a bronze-age goat herd is more accurate than modern science even though you don't have a shred of evidence to support this opinion. Often we see Creationists seem to have some form of conceit that prevents them taking part in the discussion in any reasonable fashion, as it seems even if they have errors pointed out (and proved) to them by people who obviously know what they are talking about, they're too arrogant to even consider they might be wrong.
I hope not. It would be nice if you'd stop treating us (and an overwhelming majority of scientists) like idiots, go away, do some real study, and come back for a conversation where we can help you as is needed. I'm sure I or others of my ilk can suggest good resources for learning if you ask.
I hope you'll understand if you instead merely deny established scientific fact time and time again and ignore when people try to show you you are wrong in a nice way, you'll not really be that interesting a debating partner.
-
46
If Creationism is true explain races.
by DeViL DriVeR 76 inso the bible speaks of how multiple languages came to be in babylon with the tower of babel, you all know the story.
ok so thats the bibles view on languages but what about races?
how are some people light skin others dark?
-
-
Abaddon
Argh!!!
Mad Tiger. First of all, please tell me why god cannot use evolution to bring about the life he wants?
Is your faith in god so limited you have to believe in a 'builder' god just like the bronze-age goatherds who made the Creative story up?
Why can't you believe in a far cooler and more majestic god who can get the dice to land the way he wants everytime they get thrown?
Second, you say;
Adaptation does not equal mutation.
The author's journal article used the term "adaptation" multiple times.
Adaptation does not equal mutation.
Now, tell me, are you such an expert in the subject you didn't bother to read the evidence cited? For example;
10.) 12% (3 out of 26) random mutations in a strain of bacteria improved fitness in a particular environment.
I would suggest that you firstly consider why you believe in a bronze-age goatherds explanation of creation, when obviously god could bring the world about any way he liked, and when all the evidence points to evolution.
I would also suggest you have the kindness to actually read the posts made by people who repond to you; it's really rude not to, and when your reply shows you haven't, it makes you look silly.
Thirdly, if you studied evolution to any small extent, you would realise that mutation allows the environment to 'experiment' with new genetic characteristics. Whilst mutation is random, those new characteristics do not haver equal chances of being passed on to the next generation; only those that increase an organsims chance of survival get passed on. Thus mutation (as well as normal no-mutaton genetic variation of organisms) allows adaptation.
Qcmbr
I love the fact that (it seems to me) you are becoming far less insistent on literalism than you used to be.