tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post6064555505711651805..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Once again, the IDiots don't understand evolutionLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11902593710253372072017-02-02T13:28:40.954-05:002017-02-02T13:28:40.954-05:00Hi Jass,
Could you please tell me, what is "...Hi Jass,<br /><br />Could you please tell me, what is "truth?"<br />liquidhorsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04487841877570528477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43803359637992875272017-02-02T13:28:07.093-05:002017-02-02T13:28:07.093-05:00Hi Mikkel,
I agree wholeheartedly with your obser...Hi Mikkel,<br /><br />I agree wholeheartedly with your observation. So, just to ask the question, what do you think their rationale is to dump everything that disagrees with them and their beliefs into one, well, trash-bin? Is it fear? Is it blind obedience to their belief system and its tenets? A combination of factors? I suppose I could ask, why is god a necessary conclusion for them? I know you might not have these answers, but I wanted to ask to gain your perspective. :)liquidhorsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04487841877570528477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56374573245693385912017-02-02T07:33:28.737-05:002017-02-02T07:33:28.737-05:00IDiots put all evolutionary theories into one larg...IDiots put all evolutionary theories into one large bucket, which they some times call "evolutionism", "Darwinism", or "Neo-Darwinism". <br />They don't care that these words have much more precise and limited definitions. They don't care that there are several competing theories of evolution, or several theories that explain some limited aspects of evolutionary change as it happens, while others explain or make sense of the history of life on Earth as it has happened so far. To them, the whole thing is "Darwinism" or "Evolutionism". <br /> <br />If an IDiot reads that some aspect of "Neo-Darwinism" is being criticized, what they read in their heads is "all evolutionism in all it's aspects is false". And then they jump to -therefore God!Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43232538173089463052017-02-01T19:59:27.137-05:002017-02-01T19:59:27.137-05:00Jass,
Your posts are nonsensical. Jass, <br /><br />Your posts are nonsensical. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62732126216936272662017-02-01T17:34:48.113-05:002017-02-01T17:34:48.113-05:00But to address your question: The question is poor...<i>But to address your question: The question is poorly formed. What do you mean by "examples" that made me an atheist? "Examples" of what? You are aware that the term "atheism" refers to the absence of belief in gods, right?</i>Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42624695124080142762017-02-01T17:29:56.986-05:002017-02-01T17:29:56.986-05:00lutesuite,
I changed my mssage to you last minute...lutesuite,<br /><br />I changed my mssage to you last minute. What;s your real point? What do you want to hear? Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54999314297753405692017-02-01T17:22:52.824-05:002017-02-01T17:22:52.824-05:00Why are you talking about atheism? We're supp...Why are you talking about atheism? We're supposed to be talking about evolution and creationism. Many creationists, especially those of the ID variety, say that God has nothing to do with the "theory". Do you disagree?<br /><br />But to address your question: The question is poorly formed. What do you mean by "examples" that made me an atheist? "Examples" of what? You are aware that the term "atheism" refers to the absence of belief in gods, right? Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13377077533655848432017-02-01T17:15:06.928-05:002017-02-01T17:15:06.928-05:00lutesuie,
Just give me a few proven examples that...lutesuie, <br />Just give me a few proven examples that made you an atheist. I just want to see the truth from your point of view. Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45672052626083068392017-02-01T16:59:42.685-05:002017-02-01T16:59:42.685-05:00I'm really surprised creationists continue on ...<i>I'm really surprised creationists continue on with you. Why?<br /><br />Are they that desperate to find a convert? Or, are you?</i><br /><br />That's an interesting couple questions, Jass. Why do creationists continue to engage evolutionary biologists?<br /><br />It is true that there are a few evolutionary biologists who spend a substantial amount of time discussing creationism, and engaging in debate with creationists. People such as Larry, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, etc.<br /><br />However, by far the vast majority simply spend their time in the lab and classroom, furthering science and just carrying on as if creationism doesn't exist. Which, as far as it pertains to their work, it might as well not.<br /><br />However, I cannot think of a single creationist, including those of the ID variety, who does not spend the majority of his or her time trying to engage in debate with evolutionists and find holes in evolutionary theory. Just look at any of the creationist blogs and try find a single example of research that attempts to find positive evidence for design or creation. I doubt you'll find one.<br /><br />So why is that, Jass? Your point about being desperate to find converts may be relevant, don't you think?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22565388158031994672017-02-01T16:37:02.165-05:002017-02-01T16:37:02.165-05:00"This is so frustrating. I've been debati...<b>"This is so frustrating. I've been debating creationists for almost 30 years. My colleagues and I have tried time and time again over those three decades to educate them about real evolutionary theory.</b><br /><br />I'm really surprised creationists continue on with you. Why? <br /><br />Are they that desperate to find a convert? Or, are you? <br /><br />BTW: If <i>the real evolutionary theory</i>, as you call it, had more than few people to support it, maybe more than few creationists would bother to even investigate it. <br /><br />Unfortunately, a so-story about <i>real evolutionary theory</i> bucked up by online bulling and abusive comments by the <b>real evolutionary promoters</b> must have convinced most of the world that real evolutionary theory exists...somewhere... while changing over the last 30 years depending on who is publishing his own book. <br /><br />Silent sigh :-(Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79189616539856104952017-02-01T11:39:32.038-05:002017-02-01T11:39:32.038-05:00Sounds true. Hard to work around, especially when...Sounds true. Hard to work around, especially when some of the most basic methods of science (observation, figuring things out) are dismissed. Therefore, understanding that science is NOT just accepting what you're told becomes impossible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16216457466553413232017-01-31T23:34:20.806-05:002017-01-31T23:34:20.806-05:00Hi! Thanks for your viewpoints! Very fascinating...Hi! Thanks for your viewpoints! Very fascinating stuff! I happened here while researching soft clots, of all things. I apologize in advance if I state anything you believe is glaringly obvious to the point of being painful to recount. <br /><br />I have been trying to understand the mindset of people who subscribe to ID, creationism, etc, in an effort to find a better route to, shall we say, conversing with them. While a certain level of ignorance may play a part in many believers' staunch viewpoints, I suspect there is something deeper going on here.<br /><br />After having many a back-and-forth with religious colleagues, for instance, I found myself suspecting that their understanding of how scientists use science was actually incorrect. But, I think this may be important, please let me know your thoughts: Followers of faith have, at their core, a set of beliefs that were handed to them and they accepted them as verbatim truth. It may very well be that they assume scientists do the same thing; that science IS the same thing. Obviously this is not true, but that THEY believe it's true I think might be worth challenging. It appears quite regularly, even in the commentary here, this blanket and steady assumption that because Science said it somewhere, it was accepted without further debate (the same way people believe by faith in the "truth" of their holy texts).<br /><br />I am quite anxious to see if faith-believers can themselves grapple with the idea that "faith in science" is, effectively, "faith in doubt, uncertainty, and skepticism." As such, the original phrase is a mere oxymoron, but having been myself accused of having "faith in science," I was left to ponder why such individuals believed that. Have they failed to understand that science accepts no answers as final and absolute? Are they unable to cope with the possibility that some questions may be unanswerable (and that no conclusions can be drawn from that possibility)? Do they not understand that healthy skepticism requires skepticism of skepticism itself, in addition to all other things it casts a wary eye toward? Is the answer "we do not (yet) know" somehow terrifying to them?<br /><br />I propose this view, and these questions, in light of the observation that debates using facts seem ever a waste of time (outside of the obvious entertainment-value). As long as the faith-believer believes that your "facts" are merely the regurgitation of "The Holy Science," science is no more legit to the faithful than Buddhism is to a Christian. Challenging the way they come to information, which is a key difference between faith and science, may provide an alternative approach.liquidhorsehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04487841877570528477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27693665106711469022017-01-31T22:25:00.371-05:002017-01-31T22:25:00.371-05:00I agree— Klinghoffer thinks he is attacking the s...I agree— Klinghoffer thinks he is attacking the scientific theory of evolution.<br />It seems to me he is also stuck with a false dilemma- either the theory he is attacking is true or ‘intelligent design’ is true.<br />But the theory he is attacking isn’t true and that doesn’t mean there is any intelligence or design needed to explain what we see.<br /><br />Attacking a strawman while under the influence of a false dilemma.<br /><br />That’s a behavior I can understand too well.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74120551087783945532017-01-30T16:51:17.511-05:002017-01-30T16:51:17.511-05:00@Jack Jackson,
Klinghoffer may be correct to stat...@Jack Jackson,<br /><br />Klinghoffer may be correct to state that most scientists have a flawed view of evolution and the history of life. But he goes on to say, "The facts may all be true, but the conclusion: BS."<br /><br />You could interpret that to mean he is aware of the fact that mutation + selection is incorrect and that's why he's calling it BS.<br /><br />However, I think it's more likely that Klinghoffer thinks he's describing the latest evolutionary theory of scientists. I know this because I've discussed this with the IDiots many times. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37720687066531422522017-01-30T13:37:00.663-05:002017-01-30T13:37:00.663-05:00I understand and agree with you about the importan...I understand and agree with you about the importance of genetic drift. I have learned about the importance of these things from this blog and the reading I’ve done as a result of the exposure.<br />Thank-you.<br /><br />What I am thinking is that Klinghoffer is correct to say ‘most scientists’ have the view ‘mutation plus selection’ covers the subject.<br />I give Dawkins ‘the communicator of science’ for Oxford University as an example.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7668114910146296182017-01-30T11:54:46.245-05:002017-01-30T11:54:46.245-05:00If they really understood that neutral and deleter...<i>If they really understood that neutral and deleterious mutations can be fixed, then many of their objections disappear.</i><br /><br />Doubtful this can be encompassed within a creationist mindset, since God don't fix no deleterious mutations!<br />judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68539733154588758232017-01-30T10:35:36.155-05:002017-01-30T10:35:36.155-05:00Klinghoffer says,
The theory of evolution by nat...Klinghoffer says, <br /><br /><i>The theory of evolution by natural selection operating on random mutations, as a sweeping explanation for life and how it got there ...</i><br /><br />This is typical creationist hyperbole. It's intent is to reinforce the connection between evolution and the views that Darwin published more than 150 years ago. It's why they always refer to evolution as "Darwinism." <br /><br />Evolutionary theory has moved on since 1859. We now know that much of the genetic history of life is determined by chance fixation of alleles by random genetic drift. It's no longer appropriate to restrict all explanations to mutation + selection.<br /><br />In fact, many of the creationist attacks on evolution are based on the inability of mutation + selection to account for certain features. Having set up the strawman version of evolution, they are more than happy to point out its flaws. <br /><br />If they really understood that neutral and deleterious mutations can be fixed, then many of their objections disappear.<br /><br />The other problem is that the history of life is more than just mutations + fixation of alleles. There are many other factors than need to be considered; factors like asteroid impacts, plate tectonics, and changing climate. It's wrong to imply, as Klinghoffer does, that scientists are wedded to microevolution as the only explanation for macroevolution. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42300651361504225782017-01-30T10:26:12.573-05:002017-01-30T10:26:12.573-05:00You really should be embarrassed.
About pointing ...<i>You really should be embarrassed.</i><br /><br />About pointing out that what was found was bits of broken-down chemicals? Why?<br /><br /><i>Once your eyes settle down, show some documentation for questions about the age of the specimen being asked by someone other than a creationist.</i><br /><br />Of course the documentation is that of the geology of the find. For people who understand stratigraphy and radiometric dating, that works. If you tell someone the material you're writing about was found in a particular part of the well known Hell Creek formation, that provides the date.<br /><br />If you are asking whether they discussed if this material was less than 6000 years old, of course not, for the same reason there is no discussion in mathematics papers of the various crackpot "proofs" of Fermat's Last Theorem, or the crackpot "refutations" of Cantor's diagonalization proof. These, like Young Earth Creationism, are beliefs held by a handful of crackpots who act as gadflies orbiting actual scientific work.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22422257549642442702017-01-30T09:55:56.863-05:002017-01-30T09:55:56.863-05:00Once your eyes settle down, show some documentatio...<i>Once your eyes settle down, show some documentation for questions about the age of the specimen being asked by someone other than a creationist.</i><br /><br />What sort of questions do you have in mind? "Was the fossil of Fred Flintstone found anywhere near this specimen?" Serious, scholarly questions like that, perhaps?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78731635123731665312017-01-30T09:32:48.911-05:002017-01-30T09:32:48.911-05:00judmarc,
"Riiggghhht (eyeroll)."
Once ...judmarc,<br /><br />"Riiggghhht (eyeroll)."<br /><br />Once your eyes settle down, show some documentation for questions about the age of the specimen being asked by someone other than a creationist. <br />-<br />"Please do try to read for comprehension."<br /><br />You really should be embarrassed.<br /><br />txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76424238364999575872017-01-30T07:36:28.848-05:002017-01-30T07:36:28.848-05:00http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.137...<i>http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151143#abstract0</i><br /><br />"preservation of <b>molecular signals of</b> proteins"<br /><br />Please do try to read for comprehension.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69143498117071811252017-01-30T07:26:57.625-05:002017-01-30T07:26:57.625-05:00Oh, and by the way, one more think about Mark Holl...Oh, and by the way, one more think about Mark Hollis Armitage and the paper he was supposedly fired for: <i>It contains no mention whatever of an alleged young age for the fossils.</i> So it's rather difficult to credit allegations he was fired for speaking out in this paper when there is an entire absence of the supposed "speaking out."<br /><br />I dunno, tx, do you actually read about any of this stuff you think is evidence, or do you just credulously accept that which you're inclined to believe? If the former, then please find for me in the Armitage paper any discussion that this proves a Young Earth.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17205575483542346082017-01-30T07:13:56.840-05:002017-01-30T07:13:56.840-05:00The guy who authored this paper was fired for doin...<i>The guy who authored this paper was fired for doing so:<br /><br />http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020</i><br /><br />Oh, you mean *this guy*:<br /><br /><i>http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/03/453-mark-armitage.html</i><br /><br />Yeah, everyone's real worried about a guy who was working as a lab tech without an actual technical degree. Maybe his firing had to do with his repeated attempts to talk about his Creationist views with students in the lab at Cal State who were trying to get their actual schoolwork done?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27254217701307977152017-01-30T06:49:32.950-05:002017-01-30T06:49:32.950-05:00but nobody asked any questions about the age of th...<i>but nobody asked any questions about the age of the specimen</i><br /><br />Riiggghhht (eyeroll).judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53552970693662186352017-01-29T22:23:36.644-05:002017-01-29T22:23:36.644-05:00Klinghoffer claims: the ’natural selection operati...Klinghoffer claims: the ’natural selection operating on random mutations’ story is persuasive to most scientists.<br /><br />Moran claims: ‘No knowledgable scientist’ thinks this story is correct.<br /><br />What is the disagreement?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.com