"1,000 Scientists Sign Up to Dissent from Darwin"

[tas8831]

That is what the evidence tells me too. If he has done more than assert and repeat, then it was not on this forum.
All that sciency stuff. Science is hard.

You know this means that I will be tracking down the references on your list that I do not already have and reading them to increase my understanding. I guess somebody here has to. I just wish it was the voices raised in opposition and doing it with an open mind bent on learning and understanding. That would be refreshing.

Those are all just from one guy and his collaborators just on this specfic topic. Not a lot of funding for OOL research, but Hazen has been plugging away for years on several aspects of the issue.

Funny how NO creation or ID scientists have even attempted to test any of their own hypotheses.

 

[tas8831]

Why do you keep forgetting why the infinite monkey concept is not a valid comparison to evolution. It has no selection method. Guess what happens when a selection method is added? One does not even need an infinite number of monkeys.

Creationist odds arguments fail horribly since every one that I have ever seen is based upon a strawman.

As I am sure you know, Dawkins' WEASEl program, upon adding a selection function, reduced the number of iterations to 'find' the phrase "Methinks it is like a weasel" substantially.

According to Wiki, mere random assemblages of letters and spaces have a probability of about 1 in 10^40 of coming up with the phrase, yet adding selection for the appropriate letter or space in the phrase reduces it to.... 43 attempts.


Creationists have, predictably, taken great pains to denigrate Dawkins and find fault with his program, but they continue using the same silly and flawed 'probability arguments' as if they have meaning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those are all just from one guy and his collaborators just on this specfic topic. Not a lot of funding for OOL research, but Hazen has been plugging away for years on several aspects of the issue.

Funny how NO creation or ID scientists have even attempted to test any of their own hypotheses.

One of my favorite points to make is that there is no scientific evidence for creationism and that appears to be due to the cowardice of creationists. To have scientific evidence one must first have a testable hypothesis at the very least. Creationists are afraid to put their ideas to the test. They do not want to know. They only want to believe. They appear fully aware that reality does not support their beliefs.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not sure - how should I say that to you?

I mean, how is it that a triple-degreed professor cannot accept his own educational/intellectual limitations?

Your arguments against evolution are laughable, at best, and you engage in the exact same sorts of antics that high school-level internet creationists do.

Get over yourself. I do hope that you are not so rude and condescending to your supposed 'students.'

I can be more direct--stop behaving like a degenerate with the emotional responses of a five-year-old.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You have put this absurd analogy of monkey or chimps typing up Shakespeare’s play or sonnet before at other threads before like in A simple case for Intelligent Design and in Intelligent Design???

They were ridiculous and unrealistic then, and as they are now. Why are you recycling your BS analogy.

It certainly has nothing to do with Evolution or with Abiogenesis. How about sticking to the existing evidences for Evolution, instead of your make believe scenario.

You want to debunk human evolution, the link between humans and chimpanzees, then use and compare the DNA, the chromosomes, the genome, the physical morphology, the fossils, etc.

Perhaps you should compare the monkey typing Hamlet with Intelligent Design or with Creationism.

Second.

While you can use statistics to make predictions in probabilities, they only work with real numbers and real data, to predict probable events.

They do not work some cranks using make-believe numbers to some impossible and highly improbable events. All you get are some imaginary numbers with highly delusional events.

Using your Infinite Monkey Theorem should be used to compare with Genesis creation of dust transforming into man (Genesis 2) or with Intelligent Design may be more apt comparisons.

The possibility of turning dust into a living and breathing adult male human (Adam) is as remote as the stupid possibility of monkey typing Hamlet.

Neither of them are real. One is an impossible myth, and the other is simply ridiculous analogy, both of them are unrealistic and illogical, and both are highly improbable.

They are so ridiculously illogical, that it speaks volume of your character and questionable judgment.

If IMT is debunked, you can help me by explaining the magic of natural selection and survivability for random, mechanistic processes with no end goals in mind (blind watchmakers):

a)
b)
c)

 

[BilliardsBall]

That we don’t have the original MT and the original Septuagint, to work with, but copies of these sources, are not mere rhetoric, they are date-able literary evidences.

The Septuagint not only differs in some chapters and verses to that of the Masoretic Text, but the different Septuagint codices differ with each other, only highlighted the inconsistencies found in the Bible.

And when compared them with the Samaritan Torah (or Samaritan Pentateuch), you get more differences that cannot be explain away as mere typos or copying errors.

And the Dead Sea Scrolls differed from other sources.

Most modern English translations of the Bible relied on the Masoretic Text as the main source for the Old Testament, but some of these translations might supplement their works with the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and rarely would they ever use Samaritan Torah.

The use of multiple different sources are matter of each translators’ discretion.

And I can tell you now, I have read enough different translations of the “Bible” to know that none of them are inerrant and infallible.

And like Dan have been explaining to you, your claim of infallible or inerrant Bible is a matter of your (biased) personal belief. No infallible Bible exist.

Tell me, which version of the Bible do you rely on or used frequently?

And how would you determine this version is infallible?

You want me to answer "Why is the Bible infallible" to a closed-minded person who states above, "No Bible is infallible"? I'd like to give more attention to open-minded persons, instead.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you wish to communicate a particular point, then you must communicate it. At the very least, you could give me a link.

If it's too much of a hassle for you to support your own point, I don't see why you'd expect me to do it.

I thought you knew this stuff! You didn't know that living things require homochiral sugars, or how sugars bind to essentials for life... or how homochiral building blocks are obviously required for abiogenesis...

...You're right, DON'T read my posts to you or Dan from Smithville, read some evolution books!

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is hand waving. You claim you not only can support your assertions, you can prove them, but you will not present that, because of some asserted insult or some other silly reason.

I think we all accept that you believe the Bible is infallible. In 2,000 years, no one has been able to establish that. You claim you can, but refuse to provide the support for your claims. It is has moved beyond silly now.

You truly missed Jesus's admonition to share with open-minded, not closed-minded, people? I've offered for you to pick an area to discuss (prophecy, archaeology, etc.) and you claim I refuse to support my claims--I have hundreds of posts supporting Bible accuracy, even inerrancy, here at RF.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You moved the goal posts from establishing abiogenesis to there being no valid hypotheses of abiogenesis. It is not a feeling. It is recognition of the evidence. Your explanation is that hand waving you were talking about that does nothing to explain your logical fallacy. As a scientist 'kind' means nothing to me. As a Christian, it does not matter, since I am arguing on the basis of science.

My recognition of your logical fallacy of moving the goalposts was not based on some error you made to another poster, it was based on the evidence of you doing just that across two posts to me.

Abiogenesis remains untested, but valid, hypotheses. There is evidence enough to formulate they hypotheses, but as yet, not enough to fully test them. That is being worked on.

I am not. I never said or operate under the condition that abiogenesis has been confirmed, validated, supported or proven. We do not know, but we do have valid hypotheses, is my base of operations. On the evolution front, there is so much evidence that we are rapidly--maybe already passed the point--approaching a position that evidence leading to rejection would need to be tremendous and is of low probability of occurring.

You are very biased and close-minded. It has destroyed your entire approach and understanding of these subjects to the point that every poster addressing you has to wade through repetition of the same explained points over and over. This is not about a p***ing contest. It is an honest evaluation based on what I have read here. You are certain that evolution should be rejected, but have no reason for that certainty. Biased and close-minded a statement as there is. You repeat points that were long ago explained away. Biased and close-minded with no consideration of what you were told. How you can say that you are unbiased and open-minded, given the evidence, is astounding. I can only counsel you to throw out this bias and open your mind to learning before you decide to attack science.

I do not recall a reference to drug addiction, but since you brought it up, it does have some corollaries with the behavior of biased theists bent on proving their position no matter how much evidence shows they have not and cannot. Much like drug users continually chasing that high they will never achieve.

Your passage here is another example of your bias, close-minded reliance on logical fallacies in addressing me. I never said that the Bible is false. Ever. I said that it cannot be demonstrated to be infallible. No one can do that. Not you. Not me. Not anyone. What I have said is that the story of creation, the flood and the diversity of life as presented in Genesis does not fit the evidence that we have and is not supported by that evidence. That alone should be enough to establish that the Bible is not infallible to an reasonable, unbiased and open-minded person.

I have heard many of the claims you have made over and over. You are not breaking new ground by making assertions that you do not support. If I had discovered the information you claim to, I would be presenting it and explaining it in detail anywhere I could. Request to you to reveal that information been demurred in what I consider to be classic hand waving.

In order to support your assertion that the Bible is infallible, you would have to have established things that have never been established by anyone.

I am not unsympathetic to your desire, but I see no reason what you want is necessary to a belief in God, establishment of Christian theology, acceptance of Christ and learning from the Bible.

I am not sure why. I am open-minded. That does not mean that I jump on anything another Christian says without evaluating or I am not going to tell another Christian that they are wrong. That would be false witness. I cannot stand for that. You should not either.

I am sticking with you and I have evidence that you are biased and close-minded. But if you feel you cannot deal with someone that tells you the facts, I understand.

Why stick with someone who is closed-minded, as you accuse me of being? In that vein, I'm unsure I should continue with you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your knowledge of statistics is remarkable.

I exist. The probability that I, the me that is me, is a non-zero number that is really, really close to zero. That my parents would reproduce me specifically is so near zero, I should practically not exist based on that. I cannot even calculate that probability, beyond the faint notion that it is low.

The probability that any specific species would evolved cannot be calculated, because we do not have the information. The probability that you will continue down this blind alley is probably close to one, given the evidence that you have been told this very thing by numerous posters over months and months and ignored it every time.

You really like monkeys.

For someone so certain, you lack the ability to explain that uncertainty at all. When I hear someone with your lack of understanding tell me they reject evolution on a certainty, it usually means they have a feeling and bias for their favorite explanation and nothing more.

Respectfully, you got it so wrong. That was the response of someone with a good deal more knowledge on the subject reading the work of another that does not, but this other continually repeats the same things over and over and in a way that shows he is overthinking and over-expressing himself to give the illusion he knows. In a word, reading your repetition grows tiresome when you have been given a lot of information that would have long ago clarified things for you if you were not bent on the biased goal of proving it all wrong and were instead following your own advice and learning this as if you were new born to it.

I would really recommend that you learn this material before you rush headlong into debunking it like a peripheral monkey rushing to get a handful of peanuts before the alpha notices. It would serve you better to first understand the material and, after that, if you still feel you must reject it, at least you will have some basis to mount your arguments.

You really come off as if you are trying to persuade us through your repetition and wordy questions and responses that you are a guy in the know without demonstrating that you know even the basics. If you are some kind of academic, you surely must have some inkling of this and be aware of what researching a subject means and requires.

You would be better off learning the material so that you can formulate pertinent and relevant questions succinctly.

Absolutely none of the above addresses my questions. Let's be succinct, you will claim, no matter how "open" I pose my objections, that natural selection and survivability, with no end goals in mind (the blind watchmakers) made "only" 32 million DNA base pair differences between chimps and men in 10 million years or so = evolutiondidit.

Anything I missed there?

 

[Audie]

One of my favorite points to make is that there is no scientific evidence for creationism and that appears to be due to the cowardice of creationists. To have scientific evidence one must first have a testable hypothesis at the very least. Creationists are afraid to put their ideas to the test. They do not want to know. They only want to believe. They appear fully aware that reality does not support their beliefs.

Oh now dont go mixing up cowardice and dishonesty.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You truly missed Jesus's admonition to share with open-minded, not closed-minded, people? I've offered for you to pick an area to discuss (prophecy, archaeology, etc.) and you claim I refuse to support my claims--I have hundreds of posts supporting Bible accuracy, even inerrancy, here at RF.

I am open minded. That does not mean I am feeble-minded and do not recognize someone playing pretend or back-handed insults from the close-minded.

Now your evidence is assertions that "the truth is out there". I have no doubt that there are many posts on this forum that declare you believe. Remember. My argument is not that you believe. My rejection is your unsupported assertions that you have established Bible infallibility. A rejection that still stands on the lack of evidence for acceptance provided by this very post of yours that I am addressing. I have not asserted that there is no accurate or verifiable information in the Bible. Moving the goal posts in such a ham-handed fashion does not support your argument.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why stick with someone who is closed-minded, as you accuse me of being? In that vein, I'm unsure I should continue with you.

Maybe I see something in you that can be helped. I am a Christian. Maybe I feel it is my honor-bound duty to help you.

You provide the evidence that fits my conclusion. Should I hang my head in shame for reaching a valid conclusion that fits the evidence? I am not going to.

I understand. It is difficult for someone without evidence to impose their views on someone that has the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Absolutely none of the above addresses my questions. Let's be succinct, you will claim, no matter how "open" I pose my objections, that natural selection and survivability, with no end goals in mind (the blind watchmakers) made "only" 32 million DNA base pair differences between chimps and men in 10 million years or so = evolutiondidit.

Anything I missed there?

You did not pose your objection openly. You claim to be closed to the evidence. You know without evidence and cannot or refuse to supply evidence. That is textbook closed-minded.

The evidence all points to the evolution of humans and that those are roughly the number of differences between our nearest biological relative, the chimpanzees. You are suggesting that I lie to myself and to others just because you are a Christian that does not understand, but is convinced is an expert and really, really, really want your version of creation to be true. You cast yourself as correct merely by association. By choosing to avoid that trap, I get condemned.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Absolutely none of the above addresses my questions. Let's be succinct, you will claim, no matter how "open" I pose my objections, that natural selection and survivability, with no end goals in mind (the blind watchmakers) made "only" 32 million DNA base pair differences between chimps and men in 10 million years or so = evolutiondidit.

Anything I missed there?

A lot of what you post has been addressed by myself and others and has just as often been dismissed by you without any response or any valid reason. You just keep repeating that monkeys cannot type Shakespeare. You just keep repeating that statistics falsifies the theory of evolution. You ignore the points made that invalidate those statistics. That is close-minded and you are fooling yourself that it is not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If IMT is debunked, you can help me by explaining the magic of natural selection and survivability for random, mechanistic processes with no end goals in mind (blind watchmakers):

a)
b)
c)

IMT does not really apply, due to the mechanism of selection. Not that you recognized this the first time or the nth time that has been brought up.

There is no evidence of a goal for evolution. Do you have evidence for a goal? There is no evidence that is not material. Expecting scientists to throw in feelings that cannot be substantiated using a methodology that makes every effort to exclude bias is silly.

You could try another option. You believe. No amount of evidence, logic or reason is going to persuade you otherwise. Then leave it at that. It would be honest and you would not be forcing your views on others.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You truly missed Jesus's admonition to share with open-minded, not closed-minded, people? I've offered for you to pick an area to discuss (prophecy, archaeology, etc.) and you claim I refuse to support my claims--I have hundreds of posts supporting Bible accuracy, even inerrancy, here at RF.

So when Christ first started preaching, he was preaching to people that already believed? How did that happen? Why spread the Word of God to people that already accept it? I do not think that Christ meant that His word should only be shared with people that would accept it blindly like sheep being lead.

I am open-minded and realize that evidence could be presented that I cannot invalidate. This does not mean that it is valid, necessarily, but it might be. If I could find no valid reason to ultimately dismiss the evidence and accept the conclusions, I would do so. However, I have read your posts and you cannot accept valid criticism of your assertions. You often ignore any criticism, regardless of its validity. What would you conclude about the openness of a person that does that as a rule.

Do keep in mind that I accept that a person believes and I cannot test or invalidate many of the reasons that are personal and cannot be shared. If you said the voice of God spoke to you and told you that the path you are on is righteous, I could not show that did not happen. The other side of the coin is that you cannot show it did happen. But we are not talking about something like that. We are talking about physical evidence that you claim for your assertions, but find every reason and excuse not to share. Given the reticence, I can only conclude that you have taken your belief well outside your ability to justify it and you do not have that evidence or have misinterpreted based on bias. I do not see you being able to deal with any valid criticism, but I keep trying. I keep hoping you might bring your assertions up out of your gut feelings and into your mind and evaluate them.

 

[tas8831]

One of my favorite points to make is that there is no scientific evidence for creationism and that appears to be due to the cowardice of creationists. To have scientific evidence one must first have a testable hypothesis at the very least. Creationists are afraid to put their ideas to the test. They do not want to know. They only want to believe. They appear fully aware that reality does not support their beliefs.

Agree 100%.

I read on here somewhere I think that after Jeff Tomkins had come out with his paper on how humans and chimps can't be related because we are really only like 70% similar ( a claim that was roundly debunked) , someone had contacted him and asked when he would be using his method to examine the % DNA similarities between taxa claimed to be descendants of created Kinds, and his response was that, in effect, he was right about chimps and thats that.

There was a short period in the 1990s and early 2000s during which creationists did try to discern intra-Kind relationships with science. They soon discovered, however, that without rigging the game (by placing Scripture-based constraints on analytical results, using characters that were all but guaranteed to exclude other Primates from grouping with humans, etc.) they were not getting creation-friendly results and basically disbanded the group (Baraminology Study Group).

 

[tas8831]

I can be more direct--stop behaving like a degenerate with the emotional responses of a five-year-old.

I do hope that you are not so rude and condescending to your students. You do not act like a professional.

I also note that when your supposed scientific claims are rebutted, you change the subject and reiterate already-shown-to-be-bogus claims, such as when you just keep rambling on about probability and the appendix when asked about your claims about neurological control of the release of special bacteria after diarrhea and all that.


Why do you do that? Are you some kind of degenerate?

 

[gnostic]

You want me to answer "Why is the Bible infallible" to a closed-minded person who states above, "No Bible is infallible"? I'd like to give more attention to open-minded persons, instead.

The very facts that none of the original books in the Old Testament exist today, and all extant sources (ie literary evidences, manuscripts, scrolls, papyri, etc, of Masoretic Texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Samaritan Torah, Vulgate Bible, etc) demonstrably of different versions of the Old Testament, where inconsistencies and errors are found, make the bible not infallible and not inerrant.

And the translations (eg KJV, NASB, NRSV, NIV, NJPS, etc) that we read, especially of the English-speaking backgrounds, are largely dependent on the Masoretic Texts as primary source, and depending on which translations you read, they are supplemented with Septuagint to various degrees.

So there might be contextual variants to these translations.

Those different sources that are still extant, those different translations, and the errors and inconsistencies that can be found in each and every one of them. All of these are evidences that make the Bible not infallible.

If anyone is closed-minded, BB, it is you, because you refused to see the evidences.