Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?

CreationEvolutionHeadlines ^ | September 10, 2008

[GodGunsGuts]

Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...

[GourmetDan]

"The “work” was a comparison of the DNA sequence AS IT EXISTS in eleven different species."

That's right. That's why I said, "That does not mean that the actual science they did in identifying mutation hot spots and conserved areas was wrong, just that the conclusion that 'evolution' did this are based on a fallacy."

"Do you FINALLY get it through your head that they didn't actually test mutation, they assumed it based upon common ancestry."

That's why I said, "I said the conclusions of the article are based on the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent."

"The definition of random INCLUDES probabilistic. A card game is random, but drawing a royal flush is not as likely a hand as any other."

Which is how you mislead people reading your posts. To be accurate, you should say that mutation is probabilistic. Instead you choose to mislead and say that it is random. It is not random.

[GourmetDan]

" Moreover DNA repair is something that a bacteria under stress DOWN regulates. Why would a bacteria under stress upregulate error prone DNA polymerase and downregulate DNA repair? For a better survival advantage of course! Now why would upregulating mutation and downregulating repair confer a survival advantage? What is the mechanism of this survival advantage other than increased genetic variation for selection to act upon?"

The fact that bacteria do this is not unique evidence supporting evolution unless you engage in the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Engaging in fallacies to support evolution is shoddy thinking.

[Fichori]

“Would you be willing to draw up the math and geometry that supports this claim? (Some primitive goat herders need pictures to look at!)”

“The math and the geometry would be the same in either scenario.”

Well, since you were to much of a gentleman to draw it up, I did.


(Diurnal aberration)
(8.86405893 × 10^-5° or 0.31910612148041752800 arcseconds at the equator per my calculation; wikipedia says 0.32 arcseconds)

What is going to cause that photon's angle of atack to go from 8.86405893 × 10^-5° to 2.1°?

Now its your turn to draw a nice picture.

Buck up and be a man for once!

Show us where the 2.1° comes from!

ColdWater: does the math look right? ;)

[tpanther]

Just for clarification, I’ve seen accusations of being atheist, godless, liberal, socialist, marxist, and Christophobic from differnt quarters in different contexts.

---

Absolutely, by the evidence all too often it’s not really about the science but attacks on Christain worldview. And then we see this tit for tat exchange ensue. Ideally, people discuss things rationally and when necessary agree to disagree without either side seeing a necessity to shut down the other side but this isn’t always the case.

I’m certain there are occasions that this happens between scientists, politicans and so on, but obviously the polarization in this country all too often precludes this, communication breaks down and then we see this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2086085/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2086138/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2086127/posts

MY personal experience has been it is the rabid anti-Christian far left that really has no tolerance and zero interest in anything other than their own worldview, and mostly, not always, but mostly what you see with the aforementioned “godless” “liberal” “atheist” is a RESPONSE to this intolerance and not a symptom OF intolerance.

In this outlook they have alot in common with their communist cousins. (Or in some cases brothers and sisters.)

---

What’t the upper (or lower) limit of what it’s reasonable to accuse someone of knowing only that the believe that ToE is plausible, and that they don’t believe that Biblical creationism should be presented as a scientific theory unless it can be backed up with empirical evidence? No other information has been given about their political or religious beliefs.

---

>>>>>>>Well personally I myself have no problem with ToE taught with the clear understanding it’s indeed theory.

And of course I agree with ID and that this ID theory better explains some of the gaping holes of ToE. ToE doesn’t submit valid “empirical evidence” that makes sense to me when it comes to origins. Not even close. That life just sprang up out of dirt with no purpose or intelligent thought behind it, totally random and all the perfect conditions just happened to come together by...chance? accident? The sheer astronomical odds are staggering.

I’m of the opinion that there’s room for everything and the science itself will survive a healthy debate.

But this is just my opinion...I wouldn’t think less of someone not knowing their worldview if they see ToE as PLAUSIUBLE, as I myself do!

But when they start making smart@ss comments about the Old Testamant or what have you, it’s PAINFULLY obvious to anyone that we’re not only wondering away from the science but these poeople are too intolerant to discuss anything with rationality in the first place.

And therein lies the problem.

It’s ridiculous to ask ID to PROVE itself when ToE can’t, all while undermining their efforts to even enter the debate in the first place!

Again, this leads rational people to believe EITHER the liberal lunatics have once again hijacked science to promote their worldview drowning out the few that are honestly interested in the science, OR those that are genuinely interested in the science aren’t as “objective” as they think they are or want others to believe!

[tacticalogic]

That’s all well and good. You’re entitled to your opinion. But the question was: “What’t the upper (or lower) limit of what it’s reasonable to accuse someone of knowing only that the believe that ToE is plausible, and that they don’t believe that Biblical creationism should be presented as a scientific theory unless it can be backed up with empirical evidence? No other information has been given about their political or religious beliefs.”.

[tpanther]

That’s all well and good. You’re entitled to your opinion. But the question was: “What’t the upper (or lower) limit of what it’s reasonable to accuse someone of knowing only that the believe that ToE is plausible, and that they don’t believe that Biblical creationism should be presented as a scientific theory unless it can be backed up with empirical evidence? No other information has been given about their political or religious beliefs.”.

---

I answered you. The upper limit is as low as their opponent is willing to drag the debate down and the low is as high a road as their opponent is willing to keep the discussion about science.

It’s really not a difficult concept to grasp.

Respect begets respect and vice versa.

Keeping in mind if you’re demanding empirical evidence then be prepared to present your own. Walk the walk, don’t just talk the talk.

[ColdWater]

If the Sun and Earth were perfectly motionless in space,

False assumption.

[ColdWater]

And of course I agree with ID

If you believe ID then you believe that God is dead.

[ColdWater]

ID = "That life just sprang up out of dirt with no purpose or intelligent thought behind it

[ColdWater]

Interesting:

ToE: Does not address God, does not require God, does not deny God.

ID: Dismisses God as ID. ID is most probably dead.

[ColdWater]

totally random and all the perfect conditions just happened to come together by...chance? accident?

Why do you distort the ToE! You know better, you have been told repeatedly.

ToE does not address evolution.

No scientist has ever said that life was totally random.

If fact, just the opposite. The study of science requires some order in the universe. You should spend less time at the creationists websites and more time with the textbooks.

[ColdWater]

I’m of the opinion that there’s room for everything and the science itself will survive a healthy debate.

According to the Bible, the earth is flat. Let's debate. Your turn.

[Fichori]

“If the Sun and Earth were perfectly motionless in space,”

“False assumption.”

No, its just one of the prepositions of a hypothetical question.

[ColdWater]

No, its just one of the prepositions of a hypothetical question.

If pigs could fly ...

[metmom]

If you believe ID then you believe that God is dead.

And just how is that required of someone that believes that aspects of the universe are better explained as being the product of intelligence than random chance?

[metmom]

ToE does not address evolution.

I'll bet that that's news to a lot of folks.

[mrjesse]

Lets start at the beginning then. Is the apparent position the same as the actual position?

Don't think that I haven't noticed that you still haven't agreed to answer yes or no to my question.

As we've told you many times before, the apparent position of the sun is about 21 arcseconds lagged behind the actual position due to the earth's transverse velocity - in other words, Stellar Aberration.

So no, the Sun isn't exactly where it appears - it is about 21 arcseconds ahead of where it appears. which is nowhere near your claimed 7560 arcseconds (~2.1 degrees.)

Does that answer your question fully?

-Jesse

[LeGrande]

As we've told you many times before, the apparent position of the sun is about 21 arcseconds lagged behind the actual position due to the earth's transverse velocity - in other words, Stellar Aberration.

Does that answer your question fully?

No because you are talking about the orbit of the Earth not the rotation of the Earth.

But at least you acknowledge that the apparent position is not the actual position which was my whole point in the first place.

You claimed that they were the same.

[LeGrande]

Show us where the 2.1° comes from!

Why don't you show where the 2.1 degrees comes from if the Sun is orbiting the Earth? Which you agreed is the case.

[Fichori]

“Why don't you show where the 2.1 degrees comes from if the Sun is orbiting the Earth? Which you agreed is the case. ”

Why don't i do a geocentric model?

Well, because right now we're doing a stationary binary model with a single body rotation.

Remember this?

To: Fichori

Do you thin that, If the Sun and Earth were perfectly motionless in space, except the Earth was rotating 360° every 24 hours, would (at high noon, sans the atmosphere) the optical image of the Sun be lagged 2.1° behind its gravitational pull?

Yes, up to 2.1 degrees.

1,415 posted on by LeGrande

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1414 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

You have ascribed geocentric attributes to a non-centric model.

You have claimed to have knowledge of the math and geometry invovled.

Perhaps its time you demonstrated it.

How do you account for the 2.1° in the non-centric model that you addressed in 1514?