Fallacies of Evolution

Discussion in 'Science' started by usfan, Jan 7, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I believe your neanderthal information is outdated. Did you read the analysis i provided for neanderthal? How would their genes be in modern humans, if they did not have direct genetic mixing? How could they reproduce if they were not the same species?

    I presented the current evidence, & gave my analysis & application to this thread here:
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=490664&page=89&p=1067157535#post1067157535

    Perhaps you missed it. But i see no reason to stoop to insults.. you have been one of the more reasonable debaters here. I would hate to lose you to the dark side. :)

    I am not trying to make anyone feel like anything. I present my reasoning. I add some commentary. Sometimes i overstate the commentary, but i clearly present evidence. Quotes, studies, hard facts.. My earlier complaint applies here. Most evolutionists are woefully behind with their own theory. They still hang on to debunked arguments, state speculations as fact, & many have a 19th century view of this belief system. And, i get the 'feeling' that many of my arguments, evidences, & posts in general are not even read. :(

    But, that is the nature of forum posting, ..the thread strings along & the topic gets banged about like a pinball.

    My emphasis is with genetics. I see it as the major problem for the ToE, & it has 'debunked' many things that were one believed, about living organisms. We are not apes.. not genetically, anyway. A dog is a canid.. so is a wolf. That was my point. I was not addressing the more arbitrary taxonomies, or even the phylogenetic classifications. I was going to the genetic level, & seeing if there was actual evidence for real descendancy. I see it with those canids. I don't with the hominids.
     
  2. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Neanderthal Problem is getting worse. I was a once held belief that neanderthal was a separate hominid species, that early humans came in contact with (or not). But now we know that many groups of humans have neanderthal dna in them. How is this possible, if they were a different species? We have been able to trace a mitochondrial gene that is passed down to females, that links all living humans as descended from the same mother. It is called, appropriately, the 'eve' gene. EVERY race of humans.. EVERY tribe.. every people group from anywhere has this gene in the females, that is passed down forever to daughters. It is very clear evidence of descendancy.

    This was not a popular discovery, as it flew in the face of human evolution. Neanderthals were once thought to be a separate species that evolved by itself, not just another tribe of humans.

    I found this to be an interesting article about the genetic studies, even though they do not accept the obvious implications for the ToE, with hominids.

    http://www.ancient-origins.net/news...-genome-finally-mapped-amazing-results-001138

    This incredible research has revealed the following:

    • There is now conclusive evidence that Neanderthals bred with Homo sapiens – a fact disputed for many years. Some scientists claimed the two species had never even met.
    • Ancient human species, including Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo sapiens mated with each other, resulting in an incredibly complex family tree.
    • The Denisovans share up to 8 percent of their genome with a “super achaic” and totally unknown species that dates back around 1 million years.
    • The results conflict with the theory that modern humans arose completely from one “out of Africa” migration more than 60,000 years ago that spread worldwide without mating with other early humans.
    • About 1.5 to 2.1 percent of the DNA of all people with European ancestry can be traced to Neanderthals.
    • Proportions of Neanderthal DNA are higher among Asians and Native Americans, who also have small percentages of Denisovan DNA.
    • 6 percent of the genome of Australian Aborigines and indigenous Papua New Guineans belong to the Denisovan species.
    • The Han Chinese, native to East Asia, and the Dai people of southern China are related to both Neanderthals and Denisovans.
    • Some indigenous people from Brazil, such as the Karitiana, are not only related to both Neanderthals and Denisovans, but they show relatively high genetic contributions from the Denisovans.
    • Only 87 genes responsible for making proteins in cells are different between modern humans and Neanderthals. Intriguingly, some of the gene differences involve ones involved in both immune responses and the development of brain cells in people.
    • Somewhere within these 87 genes may lay the answer to why Neanderthals and Denisovans became extinct.
    • And least consequential of all, the Neanderthal woman’s parents were related, possibly half-siblings, or an uncle and niece. As evolutionary biologist Mattias Jakobsson stated, the incest finding “is more of an anecdote”. The results from one individual cannot be applied to an entire species, in the same way that the recent discovery of an incest family in Australia does not apply to the whole of the human race.
    I find it very interesting that native Americans have such a high rate of neanderthal dna in them. Here is what i can conclude about neanderthals, from the genetic evidence:
    • Neanderthals were human. They were like a tribe of pygmies, aborigines, or some other tribe isolated with a distinct morphology.
    • This human tribe interbred with other human tribes, who then went on & expanded their turf over most of the earth.
    • This tribe originally came from Africa, like all other humans are theorized to have originated.
    • Neither Neanderthal nor Denisovans were separate species, with their own nuclear DNA. they came from the same humans that originated in Africa, then mixed more with still others, then dissipated into the human melting pot.
    • 'Nuclear DNA' is an important point. Neanderthal was NOT a distinct separate species, with its own nuclear DNA. It was from the same root as all other human beings from the exact same species we are today.
    • Former beliefs about humans evolving separately, such as in indonesia, africa, china, & northern europe are completely debunked with this genetic evidence.
    • Calling someone a 'Neanderthal!' may be an accurate description, with some people.
    • 'Modern Man' is an undefined, arbitrary description. There are lots of 'modern men' with a wide range of skeletal & morphological differences. To categorize the white european skull as 'evolved', & others as 'lower on the evolutionary scale', is a racist meme, used to demean people who look different than a white european.
    the newer information about neanderthal is fascinating, & has a lot of implications for the ToE, & especially the speculations about human origins. I have noticed that evolutionists, & those who promote it, do not stay current on this evolving debate, but prefer to cast their arguments into a 'settled science' belief, so they do not have to deal with inconvenient truths.

    good reads about neanderthal & current genetic research.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583069/
    http://www.terradaily.com/reports/New_Analysis_Shows_Three_Human_Migrations_Out_Of_Africa.html
    https://www.slideshare.net/bdrydyk/early-human-origins

    and, i saw this slideshow graphic, that was going through early humans, & i thought it gave a nutshell view of the issue:
    [​IMG]

    This is from the same slideshow presentation, & it has a pretty good picture of the 'out of africa' theory, from a genetic perspective. OOA is 'out of africa', a theory of human origins.
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Dirty Rotten Imbecile

    Dirty Rotten Imbecile Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2016
    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    43
    There is far too much for me to go through when you just copy and paste huge bodies of text like that.

    I'm still on the first quote from your post about Equis and you've already pasted a text book of other stuff at me about three other species covering multiple disciplines of science

    Did you find the article with the Rensberger quote?

    When I say "attacking the arguer instead of the argument" I'm not talking about hurling personal insults, I wouldn't do that.

    I am going to go out on a limb here and I'm just doing it because of the sheer volume of information that your cutting and pasting at me.

    I'm here to discuss ideas with people and a few links are fine to back up claims but I am limited by time and energy so I'm not just going to dispute all this stuff.

    I am going to say that I question your methods. As an example you sound quite betrayed in your post on Neanderthals. You have variations of the 1965 March of Progress chart there and talking as though the entire theory of evolution has been knocked on its ass by some new information when that really isn't the case. Although the march of progress chart is older and it does seem to advocate a linear progression if you read the text that accompanied it, that's not the case at all.

    Science is about a lot of data being analyzed over long periods of time by multiple scientists with a lot of peer review. New data will change things but it's not likely that one discovery is just going to overturn the whole thing and that's not because of a faithful zeal of a religious nature it's because of an enormous body of scientific data that supports it. New data might change aspects of the theory but there is enough data that's unlikely that anyone is ever going to just scrap it and say "oh yeah we were wrong about this one point."

    When new data does come along that proves an old idea wrong it doesn't invalidate the science. It shows that the peer review system works and it shows that science is constantly updating with new information. Science is t about making absolute claims like
    "The earth was surrounded by a canopy of water" and then telling everybody it must be accepted based on faith.

    And by the by the link I posted from Wikipedia was not outdated. You can see the dates of the source information in the footnotes.
     
  4. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,371
    Likes Received:
    1,467
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is usfan's modus operandi. He overwhelms his opponents with so much cut and paste data, that no one possibly has time to look it up and counter. This is why I no longer argue against his so called "facts" and instead call into question his expertise. If he has definitive proof that evolution is false, then why his he wasting time on an Internet forum. He should write a paper and submit it to Nature or some other peered reviewed publication.
     
  5. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I can't win. If i post all the links, sources, & quotes, i am 'overwhelming'. If i post a brief summary, i am being 'simplistic' or 'not sourcing'.

    Ok, from the above post, here are my central points & conclusions, regarding the now known dna evidence for neanderthal:

    I find it very interesting that native Americans have such a high rate of neanderthal dna in them. Here is what i can conclude about neanderthals, from the genetic evidence:

    1. Neanderthals were human. They were like a tribe of pygmies, aborigines, or some other tribe isolated with a distinct morphology.
    2. This human tribe interbred with other human tribes, who then went on & expanded their turf over most of the earth.
    3. This tribe originally came from Africa, like all other humans are theorized to have originated.
    4. Neither Neanderthal nor Denisovans were separate species, with their own nuclear DNA. they came from the same humans that originated in Africa, then mixed more with still others, then dissipated into the human melting pot.
    5. 'Nuclear DNA' is an important point. Neanderthal was NOT a distinct separate species, with its own nuclear DNA. It was from the same root as all other human beings from the exact same species we are today.
    6. Former beliefs about humans evolving separately, such as in indonesia, africa, china, & northern europe are completely debunked with this genetic evidence.
    7. Calling someone a 'Neanderthal!' may be an accurate description, with some people.
    8. 'Modern Man' is an undefined, arbitrary description. There are lots of 'modern men' with a wide range of skeletal & morphological differences. To categorize the white european skull as 'evolved', & others as 'lower on the evolutionary scale', is a racist meme, used to demean people who look different than a white european.
    You can look to the earlier posts, if you want, for the sources for the studies, or articles, or other quotes. I'm sorry if this is still overwhelming, but i look for accuracy & scientific methodology. I don't think these points can be easily refuted, with the current knowledge about neanderthal, but if anyone wants to rebut them, i won't mind. I've numbered them for easy reference.

    And really.. there was only ONE cut & paste, from the major study, & put all their points in for everyone to read. They do NOT see this refuting evolution, or being incompatible with the common view of human evolution, but i find it hard to see how. the other 2 were graphics. All the rest were my own words, explaining the study & the conclusions.
     
  6. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,379
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Prove it..:)
     
  7. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I did not get that from the quote, but if all it is saying is that 'genes do the same stuff with different organisms,' then i would agree. But the implication was that the same genes do the same processes in all organisms.. whether it was intended or not.

    MTDNA is the only sound method for determining true ancestry. Trying to see a 'looks similar' in different nuclear DNA strands is not. That is the premise begging the question, or circular reasoning, if you first ASSUMe descendancy, then see how similar the DNA strands 'look'. They do not have the same genes.. the same number of chromosomes, or the same genotype. Different haplogroups can be seen to be related, but distinctly different genotypes cannot. That is only assumed, or speculated. There is no mechanism that allows such major genetic changes.
     
  8. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,421
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Already have.
    Moving on
     
  9. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,029
    Likes Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Proof of Evolution from one of the finest institutions in the United States.
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

    Now we don't know everything science will keep hammering away at the issues until they figure them out however poking holes at the one tested and sound theory science has to explain biological advancement isn't going to kill the theory, unless critics come up with something BETTER that can replace it now - do you?

    Just because we don't know doesn't mean its a fallacy, we don't know but can make assumptions based on what we know what likely happened and fit the pieces together which with the addition of DNA and the newest approaches is a significant puzzle with few pieces missing but we have the shapes and will figure this all out better.

    If god did this fine, he should show his face and tell us and show us short of that I don't see "Magic" as being a legitimate as part of science.

    This isn't science:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5H1DIjAq0I
     
  10. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    4,213
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Like I said, context is important.

    What makes mtDNA analysis "the only sound method for determining true ancestry," as compared to analysis of nuclear DNA?

    Also, are you pointing to different numbers of chromosomes being an indicator that different species can't be descended from a common ancestor? Like we have 23 pairs of chromosomes, chimps have 24 pairs, so you would say that means we aren't actually related?
     
  11. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you see this as a problem for science and ToE? The beauty of science is that it continually marches forward bringing with it more and more understanding and knowledge.

    The definition of "species" has been fluid for many years. The advent of DNA brought about many changes to what comprised a species.

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41 (my emphasis)
    http://eol.org/info/468(my emphasis)
    There may well be some scientists who will dig their heels in against new findings: Hoyle-Hubble; Einstein-Bohr. More research will be done, more changes to our understanding will occur. That is good. That is progress.
     
  12. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    33,706
    Likes Received:
    25,795
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except that your "source" for the "only ONE cut & paste, from the major study" that you used in post #1002 is bogus.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=490664&page=101&p=1067175680#post1067175680

    Your original link takes one to a website called "Ancient Origins" that openly admits that they include "alternative viewpoints and explanations of science, archaeology, mythology, religion and history around the globe". How much of the article was factual and how much was "alternative viewpoints and explanations of science"?

    http://www.ancient-origins.net/news...-genome-finally-mapped-amazing-results-001138

    Strike 1!

    Then when you click on their alleged link to the original article it takes you to yet another suspect site called "Seeker" with a sensationalised headline "Are you related to Neanderthals? Photos".

    http://www.seeker.com/are-you-related-to-neanderthals-photos-1768163161.html

    The actual article appears to be little more than photo-journalism and the referenced names do not appear to correlate with the names of those who actually published the original study in Nature. Furthermore the sensationalised article references "earlier studies" without any links whatsoever. Most telling of all being that the specific "facts" like "only 87 genes" in your post #1002 do not exist in the sensationalised source.

    Strike 2!

    The link to "in Nature" in the Seeker source merely points to the generic INDEX page for Nature and not the specific paper on the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome itself. It requires a search to find that actual paper. Given that there were several results the latest dated one which immediately predates the sources above appears to be what is being referenced. Only an abstract is available without a subscription. Here is the abstract;

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7492/full/nature12961.html

    Note that the bolded above refers to other studies regarding the locations of Neanderthal ancestry but that was not the primary objective of this study which was to study evolutionary genetics via the distribution of Neanderthal DNA as defined in the Editors Summary.

    The OP made the false allegation that there was "only ONE cut & paste, from the major study" which is patently false given the trail of evidence above.

    Strike 3!

    Since the OP relies upon dubious opinionated sources rather than the original peer reviewed studies in reputable sources there is no point in taking the OP's opinions seriously. The entire objective of the OP was to "debunk" the ToE but since he is doing that with sources that lack credibility there can be no "debunking".

    The OP is entitled to his own opinion about the ToE but not his own facts.

    And no, this is not a personal ad hom but merely exposing the fallacious sources that the OP is using in his attempt to discredit the ToE.

    Furthermore the OP flatly refuses to discuss his motivation for attacking the ToE and compounds that by refusing to offer any viable alternative to explain the similarities in DNA amongst diverse species.

    There can be no honest debate about the ToE when the OP begins with an utterly baseless presumption about the ToE that he cannot substantiate with anything credible.
     
  13. Dirty Rotten Imbecile

    Dirty Rotten Imbecile Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2016
    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I had my DNA analyzed by the National Genographic Project and they advise what percentage of my DNA is Neanderthal and what percentage is Denisovan. I also submitted my DNA to a guy who runs a genealogy group for my family name who helped me to discover that a few generations ago my female ancestor had a child out of wedlock so I do t actually carry the DNA of others with my family name since her don was raised by a man with a different last name. But I digress.

    I have also read about the interspecies coupling of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalis in in National geographic.

    I don't think there was ever a time when it wasn't "popular". There was a time when the data was less certain and as it becomes more certain it becomes more widely accepted. And that goes back to what
    I was saying before. Just because new data becomes available that changes or clarifies our understanding does not mean that everything previously stated was all wrong.

    Scientists can be wrong about stuff without it emasculating them. A great example is the way Stephen Hawking theorized that information would be lost in a black hole. Leonard Susskind proved that he was wrong about that but gave Hawking great credit for asking the right questions that lead to an increased understanding of black holes.

    At no time do I ever recall scientists claiming that the mating between Neanderthals and humans disproved the theory of evolution.
     
  14. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm a hobby genealogist, too. And i've been dna'd as well. :)
    Some of your post is a strawman. I'm not sure what points you are arguing, that i presented, but i never claimed the 'neanderthal problem' disproved the ToE. It might be useful to rebut my numbered points, to apply your rebuttal to each one.

    It IS a problem for the earlier beliefs, that i briefly listed. I'll present some more points if anyone wishes to address them:
    1. Neanderthal is NOT a distinct, separate species. They could not mate with humans, if they were. They were the EXACT SAME SPECIES as we are, now. If you call us homo sapiens, they were homo sapiens. There is NO scientific evidence to label them otherwise.
    2. I can browse through the web right now, & find .edu sites, nature sites, & many self proclaimed 'science' sites that list neanderthal as a different species. Most people who have been indoctrinated into the ToE still believe that, & i have had many, in just the last few years, who have asserted that.
    3. Some are scientists, but most are 'pseudo scientists', who promote the ToE as a religious/philosophical belief.
    4. Much of the information from evolutionists is woefully outdated. As a whole, they do not keep up with newer discoveries, especially if it conflicts with long standing beliefs. It can take years.. even decades, before old talking points about 'proof of evolution!' are updated. And even when it is, it is quietly, without fanfare, unlike when the 'proof!' was originally presented.
    5. Most of the info about neanderthal dna is decades old.. but even with the clear relation between neanderthal & their ancestry with living humans, many old systems keep presenting the old data.. asserting it & ignoring the new data that refutes the former belief.
    6. The 'beliefs' about neanderthal, & many other beliefs that genetics has exposed problems with, are held tightly. They were not presented as 'theories' at the first, but dogmatically presented as 'known fact'. Now, it is harder to back pedal, since it exposes the flawed science, & dogmatic beliefs.
    7. Pointing to morphological differences, & using that to make taxonomic categories, is often flawed, as it clearly is with neanderthal. Modern humans & neanderthal (and many other tribes) are genetically from the same haplogroup.. they are the same genotype. They are the same species. They may be from different haplotypes, but they are from the same group. I can address that more, later, if anyone is interested.
    8. Neanderthal can be categorized as a unique 'haplotype', like pygmies, aborigines, mongols, & many other isolated, morphologically distinct tribes of humans. But they are all from the same 'haplogroup', of homo sapien genotype.
    9. I am only 'emasculating' those who dogmatically state their philosophical beliefs as 'settled science', when it is clearly NOT supported with any empirical evidence. That is Fake Science, & SHOULD be condemned, by any who value the integrity of the scientific method.
     
  15. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Some of the other replies to my posts are just fallacies. I see some poison the well, strawmen, 'gotchas!', ad hominem, & assertion, with no rebuttal to any of my points. So i feel no compunction to reply to those posts. The science is plainly there, & i have provided links, articles, studies, & quotes to present it, along with my own personal analysis. If anyone wishes to rebut my analysis, that would be appropriate. Or, if you wish to refute the studies presented, or what they have indicated about neanderthal, you can do that, too. But more fallacies directed at my posts only confirms the premise of the OP. If that is what you are trying to do, then i appreciate the illustrations.
     
  16. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ..more thoughts about neanderthal.

    When i was in junior high school... WAY back mid 20th century.. there were white supremacists that had flyers. They had cute little graphics that 'showed' the inferiority of negroes.. they illustrated, with the 'march of evolution' chart, how humans have evolved to the modern pinnacle of perfection. Neanderthal was used heavily for this propaganda of aryan elitism. They held to the belief that it was an ancestral species, that modern homo sapien evolved from. This has been a central point of the ToE from early on.. it was refuting the Enlightenment notion that 'all men are created equal'. It was an elitist view of man, with the 'modern' man at the top of the heap.. more fully evolved than the dull, lower, inferior races. These were the kinds of graphics that accompanied this teaching:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    See how they correlate the 'lower' evolutionary rung for negroes? Is this anything but a racist meme, for white supremacists?

    But the same 'graphics' are presented now, only whitewashed for political correctness. They give the older ancestors a whitish hue, to hide the implications of race. But they cannot hide the skull shape.. just ignore the implications.
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    The euro white skull is hailed as the pinnacle of human evolution, from purely a morphological perspective. The lower forehead, thicker skull, & other 'neanderthal' features are presented as lower or less evolved on the human evolutionary scale.

    [​IMG]

    All these fossils, skulls, & imagined drawings are presented as 'proof of human evolution!', but everyone seems to ignore the racial implications. They promote what is clearly a racist meme, that the nazis used, as well as the bolsheviks in russia, & the progressives in early 20th century America, with the Eugenics movement.. closely affiliated with progressivism.

    That is why the ToE is such a damaging, negative ideology, as it is taught in schools. It brings the implication that darker skinned races, or those with a different skull shape, are lower on the evolutionary scale. But that is ALL based on the ASSERTION that the morphological differences mean something.. that they really mean we are 'evolving'.

    The facts do not compel such a view of humanity. Skull shape is merely a variable trait, in the human animal. It is no different than height, bone structure, eye color, skin, or any other of the variables within homo sapiens. It is only arbitrary distinctions, made for elitist purposes, that promote such a view. Those are just prejudicial, bigoted perceptions from those who feel THEIR body type, or skull structure, or skin color make them superior.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    The ToE started as a 'manifest destiny' justification.. but it became the basis for a naturalistic view of the universe. But it is still the antithesis of the Enlightenment beliefs of man being a unique, sovereign, free moral agent, equal to all other men. Jefferson said, '.. the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..' laying out the enlightenment view. You can call it 'God', if you want. Or, 'Laws of Nature'. You can call it Fred. It does not matter WHAT you call it, the point is, Man is separate & equal.. not subject to the domination of a ruling, superior elite.

    Now, i know i have stooped to philosophizing here, or showing the implications of a particular belief system. But it is important to see where the ideals come from, in any ideology. If you don't know your roots, and you can't see where you've come from, you probably can't see where you are going, either. It is also important, imo, to differentiate between philosophical BELIEFS, & empirical science. This concept is a dying one, in our current culture, as the line is blurred, & beliefs are stated dogmatically as 'settled science!'
     
  17. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,379
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whoa mate, I haven't finished hauling Dawkins over the coals yet....:)
    To recap, first I poked fun at him for saying on page 146 of "Climbing Mt Improbable" that the lens of the eye was a lump of jelly that "spontaneously formed" out of nowhere and then decided to form itself into a lens shape.

    Now I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that he also mistakenly said that the eye is wired up back to front!-
    Quote: "Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina, to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called 'blind spot') to join the optic nerve. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer!)." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," 1991, reprint, p93).

    Yet even though biologists have pointed out to him that he's wrong, he refuses (as far as I know) to admit his mistake!
    Here's one rebuttal-
    "..if the rods and cones were turned around to face the incoming light, as Dawkins requires, the pigment layer would have to be between the light and the light receptors, thus blocking vision altogether! In short, it is just as well that God, not Professor Dawkins, designed the eye!"
    http://creation.com/seeing-back-to-front
     
  18. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    53,383
    Likes Received:
    4,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is handwaiving and stating "nuh uh". You make several baseless assertions as well.

    You provided no evidence what so ever to rebut what was given
     
  19. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    53,383
    Likes Received:
    4,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
     
  20. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    594
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    With that post usfan you have cemented your reputation as a Creationist, you are not neutral at all. That post would not have looked out of place on any of the Evangelical Creationist Christian sites and forums I have ever visited. You've blown your 'cover' completely there.
     
  21. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    53,383
    Likes Received:
    4,802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Knowing this is a demonstrable lie, how can you post this with a straight face?
     
  22. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My take away from your post is that you believe the ToE and the teaching of the ToE is bad. The evidence you present for that is that people have used it for bad purposes.

    Martin Luther justified his hatred of the Jews with the Christian Bible. The Nazis used the teachings of Martin Luther to justify, to primarily Christian Germans, the killing of millions of Jews.
    People will always use whatever they can to justify their beliefs. White supremacists and Nazis use(d) both the Bible and ToE to justify their hatred and their actions.

    During WWII, Americans were warned about the evils of the Yellow Peril - the Slant Eyes, to inspire young men to fight in the Pacific.
    [​IMG]
    During WWII, Americans were warned about the evils of the Atheistic Nazis to inspire young men to fight in Europe.
    [​IMG]
     
  23. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    C'mon, Bill. You ignore my points, edit my post, & throw out a 'poison the well' fallacy. That is all you have? Some kind of imagined 'smear by association?'

    You have no rebuttal for any of my points, arguments, facts, or sources. This is one of the lamest replies, but is fairly typical, in this thread. But it is beneath you, imo, to stoop to these kinds of fallacies. Debate the issues, if you dare, & leave the fallacies & heckling to the peanut gallery.
     
  24. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I posted the following in USFAN's thread "Fake Science"

    ==============================================================================================================
    From the OP (my emphasis)
    The first problem you cite is Mandated Conformity. Yet in your own post # 1002 in your own thread "Fallacies of Evolution" you write about a controversy regarding new findings relating to Neanderthal's.

    (my emphases)


    • How can new scientific findings be causing controversy in the scientific community if everyone in the scientific community prefers to mandate belief in their decrees?

      Your two postings in your two different threads directly contradict each other.

      Yeah, I know. It's just another of ecco's Gotchas.
     
  25. usfan

    usfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Very ironic. Ok, since you want it both places, here is my response from there. Some people may start to wonder which side you are arguing from, if you continue to toss easy softballs to me. :)

    Ok, that was pretty easy. Any more softballs? :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page