CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
All very well said!
And that is why creationists will never win the argument.
A mind must be open to digest data, if it ever wants wisdom.
Creation vs Evolution
- Thread starter Total_cho
- Start date
- Status
All very well said!
And that is why creationists will never win the argument.
A mind must be open to digest data, if it ever wants wisdom.
Well, I Think Ill try this thread a little too. I know this sort of discussion is endless, but hey, I am seeking controversy, isnt it written under my name?
My friend, I think your rebuttal actually reinforced his point. I dont see his message as an misplaced attempt to show how the literacy of bible is flawed I agree that this sort of view is not being sustained by any creationist in this thread but actually, as a demonstration as for why it is incoherent that theists try to make the truth of the bible relative.
As you have admitted yourself, Jesus and his followers knew zip of the world as compared to us. Their textual writings are equivocated and, if interpreted as they meant them to be, they are easily proved wrong.
What is the solution that common sense demands? Well, if you get a number of affirmatives from a source, and prove many of them wrong, youll naturally doubt that the rest are true. For example, if you find a book saying that Afghanistan has defeated the USA army and that the Talibans are still the rulers there, youll be very skeptical as for any other information you read in it.
But if you assume that the book is right no matter what, you may interpret this as oh, but the Talibans have showed to their brothers fundamentalists that USA can be hurt, that was their goal so they won, and they may not be in administrative control, but they are still the rulers in the heart of their people.
So, you see, what you call contextual interpretation can be used as a tool to deny the hard facts. Of course that when they said that earth was 5.000 years old they did the best they could from available data, and it made sense to them; but it does not change the fact that this information is plain wrong, and that it raises doubt to all other information in the bible.
So, those who interpret bible literally may be naive, but are, at least, coherent. They say that bible is perfect because they believe that the bible, as the exact word of God, is flawless, the very definition of perfection. They argue on faith, the one and only field that sustain their arguing.
What I dont get is people that can actually admit wrongs in the bible, but say that its right if we interpret contextually (change the meaning of) this word here, and this other, and even this other. This is mixing the common sense (disregard what is obviously wrong and/or simplistic) with the fundamentalism (its right no matter what). Thus the incoherence, thus why this sort of compromising (God created the humans through evolution) is just a political solution that really helps in nothing to solve the nature of the controversy.
Thats true, evolution does not explain everything. The point is that its not supposed to. See, evolution is a proposed hypothesis, that happens to have tons of empirical confirmation. It does not intend to be the revelation of the perfect truth.
That sort of megalomania is in the realm of religion. Its the sacred scriptures that always claim to be the source of the ultimate true. So, Darwin proposed a model that made sense. That model, admittedly, had some problems. He, as a conscientious man, instead of hiding them, proposed himself the flaws to the scrutinizing from his fellow scientists.
So, arguing that scientific theories are not perfect is not really valid as for a reason to disregard them. No one ever said they had to be perfect. In fact, to consider a theory perfect (meaning that it is not subject of revision) would be to deny the very logistic of the scientific method, that solidly relies on the negation of the existence of an ultimate truth.
As for the guiding forces of the universe (a.k.a. theory of intelligent design), I have to say that its rather inconsistent. See, a watch is not something that can be created by the forces of nature. It is specifically and intelligently designed to satisfy our needs (it will fit in our wrist, it will divide the day in the set number of hours we designed). Universe, on the other hand, does not have blueprints so we can compare the actual thing with a planning. We think of it as perfect because, as it was here before us, we designed our notions of logic and coherence through it.
And also, unlike the watch, the earth is not perfectly fit to us. We easy use of only about 30% of its surface, and optimal use of an even smaller rate, as there are deserts and volcanoes and floods and storms and a number of other flaws in our little planet. Comparing the perfection of its design with the one of a watch would only be correct if our watches used to explode and severed the hands of people from time to time.
Last but not least, remember that even if evolution is plain wrong and it gets proved beyond reasonable doubt (despite how unlikely it is), it does not instantly makes creationism true. Its not like they are the only options. You cannot prove a theory by disproving another. Evolutionism being true or not, creationism remains unlikely and simplistic to a degree that makes it quite incredible.
There are a few problems with your points. Two of them I already addressed, as said above that having gaps is not a reason to dismiss a coherent theory, but only to further the research until we find a better explanation, and when I said that even if evolution is wrong, it does not make creationism true.
Another one is that of having to trust in scientists. See, you are right to say that most man cannot perform their own researches, and that their data comes from the scientific community. The problem is that scientific theories are not systems of believe, they are hypothesis, that only gains credibility if backed up by data. Those scientists who wont buy the hypothesis always can try to disprove it with their own analyses, that will also be considered only if they are backed up.
To imagine that all possible scientists in the Earth are biased, incompetent, misguided and hiding data in a worldwide conspiracy to validate a false hypothesis is rather paranoid. Specially because people in sciences are committed with the truth, not with evolutionism. And if the truth, someday, appear to lie elsewhere, theyll destroy evolution as tenaciously as they destroy creationism.
As for the bones thing, well, you have a half-point. I am not sure if we do have a better record of dinosaurs than of human ancestors (sources please), but we would have to check two things before labeling it of acward: first, the size of the bones, as a gigantic bone of a tyrannosaur is quite more likely to endure than a human bone; and two, how does the changes in earth weather have influenced the conditions of preservation.
Only after we check this your point can be valid.
Regards
.
My friend, I think your rebuttal actually reinforced his point. I dont see his message as an misplaced attempt to show how the literacy of bible is flawed I agree that this sort of view is not being sustained by any creationist in this thread but actually, as a demonstration as for why it is incoherent that theists try to make the truth of the bible relative.
As you have admitted yourself, Jesus and his followers knew zip of the world as compared to us. Their textual writings are equivocated and, if interpreted as they meant them to be, they are easily proved wrong.
What is the solution that common sense demands? Well, if you get a number of affirmatives from a source, and prove many of them wrong, youll naturally doubt that the rest are true. For example, if you find a book saying that Afghanistan has defeated the USA army and that the Talibans are still the rulers there, youll be very skeptical as for any other information you read in it.
But if you assume that the book is right no matter what, you may interpret this as oh, but the Talibans have showed to their brothers fundamentalists that USA can be hurt, that was their goal so they won, and they may not be in administrative control, but they are still the rulers in the heart of their people.
So, you see, what you call contextual interpretation can be used as a tool to deny the hard facts. Of course that when they said that earth was 5.000 years old they did the best they could from available data, and it made sense to them; but it does not change the fact that this information is plain wrong, and that it raises doubt to all other information in the bible.
So, those who interpret bible literally may be naive, but are, at least, coherent. They say that bible is perfect because they believe that the bible, as the exact word of God, is flawless, the very definition of perfection. They argue on faith, the one and only field that sustain their arguing.
What I dont get is people that can actually admit wrongs in the bible, but say that its right if we interpret contextually (change the meaning of) this word here, and this other, and even this other. This is mixing the common sense (disregard what is obviously wrong and/or simplistic) with the fundamentalism (its right no matter what). Thus the incoherence, thus why this sort of compromising (God created the humans through evolution) is just a political solution that really helps in nothing to solve the nature of the controversy.
Thats true, evolution does not explain everything. The point is that its not supposed to. See, evolution is a proposed hypothesis, that happens to have tons of empirical confirmation. It does not intend to be the revelation of the perfect truth.
That sort of megalomania is in the realm of religion. Its the sacred scriptures that always claim to be the source of the ultimate true. So, Darwin proposed a model that made sense. That model, admittedly, had some problems. He, as a conscientious man, instead of hiding them, proposed himself the flaws to the scrutinizing from his fellow scientists.
So, arguing that scientific theories are not perfect is not really valid as for a reason to disregard them. No one ever said they had to be perfect. In fact, to consider a theory perfect (meaning that it is not subject of revision) would be to deny the very logistic of the scientific method, that solidly relies on the negation of the existence of an ultimate truth.
As for the guiding forces of the universe (a.k.a. theory of intelligent design), I have to say that its rather inconsistent. See, a watch is not something that can be created by the forces of nature. It is specifically and intelligently designed to satisfy our needs (it will fit in our wrist, it will divide the day in the set number of hours we designed). Universe, on the other hand, does not have blueprints so we can compare the actual thing with a planning. We think of it as perfect because, as it was here before us, we designed our notions of logic and coherence through it.
And also, unlike the watch, the earth is not perfectly fit to us. We easy use of only about 30% of its surface, and optimal use of an even smaller rate, as there are deserts and volcanoes and floods and storms and a number of other flaws in our little planet. Comparing the perfection of its design with the one of a watch would only be correct if our watches used to explode and severed the hands of people from time to time.
Last but not least, remember that even if evolution is plain wrong and it gets proved beyond reasonable doubt (despite how unlikely it is), it does not instantly makes creationism true. Its not like they are the only options. You cannot prove a theory by disproving another. Evolutionism being true or not, creationism remains unlikely and simplistic to a degree that makes it quite incredible.
Originally posted by Becka
What if there are flaws? Since I have neither the know-how nor the time or money to do my own research, I have to have faith that the scientists weren't 1.) horribly biased 2.) grossly incompetent or 4.) poorly educated. What if they miss or purposely ignore something important? Keep in mind, I don't doubt that scientists trying to support creationism would do the EXACT same thing, though.
When I think of how many fairly "complete", say, t-rex skeletons we have discovered (I have NO idea how many this is, probably only a few) and then I think how many "complete" skeletons of man's anscestors (anscestors that were more man than ape or whatever), I see a discrepency. Shouldn't there be at least as many remains of early man (NOT modern human, I mean) if not more than there are of some species (like dinosaurs) that lived before man evolved?I would think that the span of time between the death of the dinosaurs and the time which we dug them back up again would be ample time for many more fossilized specimens to be destroyed through natural causes.
And to a layman like me, it seems that everytime they find remains of early man, all they have is a TOOTH, or a thigh, or a jaw, or a skull, or if we're really lucky, a tooth, thigh, jaw AND skull.Then however many months/years/whatever later, we learn that that was NOT remains of early man, but part of it was from a monkey, and the rest was from a "modern" human. Or worse yet, it was a hoax.
Or somebody gives reasons that the remains are not human or something, and again, one does not have time/money/oppertunity/education to study these things deeper. Even if you went to library and aquired books about the subject, they would likely be (or at least seem) biased towards one theory or another. I get so confused I don't know WHAT to believe anymore, so I just get sick of it all and give up.
There are a few problems with your points. Two of them I already addressed, as said above that having gaps is not a reason to dismiss a coherent theory, but only to further the research until we find a better explanation, and when I said that even if evolution is wrong, it does not make creationism true.
Another one is that of having to trust in scientists. See, you are right to say that most man cannot perform their own researches, and that their data comes from the scientific community. The problem is that scientific theories are not systems of believe, they are hypothesis, that only gains credibility if backed up by data. Those scientists who wont buy the hypothesis always can try to disprove it with their own analyses, that will also be considered only if they are backed up.
To imagine that all possible scientists in the Earth are biased, incompetent, misguided and hiding data in a worldwide conspiracy to validate a false hypothesis is rather paranoid. Specially because people in sciences are committed with the truth, not with evolutionism. And if the truth, someday, appear to lie elsewhere, theyll destroy evolution as tenaciously as they destroy creationism.
As for the bones thing, well, you have a half-point. I am not sure if we do have a better record of dinosaurs than of human ancestors (sources please), but we would have to check two things before labeling it of acward: first, the size of the bones, as a gigantic bone of a tyrannosaur is quite more likely to endure than a human bone; and two, how does the changes in earth weather have influenced the conditions of preservation.
Only after we check this your point can be valid.
Regards
.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Damn well said!
This is most sense I have read on this debate, thus far.
Creationists of course will try and read between lines of this argument and nitpick, and generally refuse to accept logic.
But for me the damage is done. Science is not perfect, but is better than the alternative.
Logic is unstoppable. Myth cannot stand up in the bright glare of real knowledge and wisdom, and the striving for them.
To creationists;
There really is no excuse for hiding behind literal creationism or dogma nowadays.
Except to soothe wounded egos, increase flagging self-esteem and to avoid harsh reality.
I have nothing against faith and religion, only people who refuse to learn.
Learning is the basis of all religion, and humankind...
Perfection
The Great Head.
Well every theory has flaws, think of evolution like an office building, maybe the elevators get jammed onche and a while but it doesn't mean the building doesn't work.
Yeah but your taliking about a whole class of animals that lived over a period of a 200 million years than a small group from an order of animals that lived for only 10 million years. There were many many more to begin with so a bunch getting destroted really dosn't affect it.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
Perhaps you didn't read the last line: "BTW, I'm agreeing with you Troqulet!"
Of the several people just started arguing in the last posts, you have several good points. But you must remember, there are THREE sides to this argument: straight evolutionist, straight creationist, and a mix of the two. I always thought that a mix of the two fills in a few holes in both sides...
CG
Nah, I actually saw it.
You guys have agreed that interpreting the bible literally is foolish, that much I knew.
But I saw another point in his post; the idea that "trying to relativize the texts of the bible to make them fit our knowledge is incoherent". It was what I adressed in my message, and I did not saw you agreeing with THIS particular issue.
But if you did and it was I that failed to get that, than I apologize.
BTW, I do not believe in a single thing of the Creationism or the Intelligent Design, as both sounds rather silly in my perspective; However, I'm not commited to Evolutionism, and a better hypothesis will make me change my mind in a second without a single regret.
So, in which of the groups do I fit in?
Regards.
You guys have agreed that interpreting the bible literally is foolish, that much I knew.
But I saw another point in his post; the idea that "trying to relativize the texts of the bible to make them fit our knowledge is incoherent". It was what I adressed in my message, and I did not saw you agreeing with THIS particular issue.
But if you did and it was I that failed to get that, than I apologize.
BTW, I do not believe in a single thing of the Creationism or the Intelligent Design, as both sounds rather silly in my perspective; However, I'm not commited to Evolutionism, and a better hypothesis will make me change my mind in a second without a single regret.
So, in which of the groups do I fit in?
Regards
.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
Oh, sorry. I misunderstood your post.
Err...you're in the 4th group, the ones who don't really belive in either.
About the whole argument, it really comes down to beleiving in God. If you believe in God, than you can accept the discrepiencies in the Bible. If you don't believe in God, than you can't accept those descripancies. One leads to the other.
CG
The Troquelet
Conscious
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 1,950
Double double toil and trouble...
The Troquelet
Conscious
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 1,950
Applause to FredLC for a very logical argument! 
"
Yeah but your taliking about a whole class of animals that lived over a period of a 200 million years than a small group from an order
of animals that lived for only 10 million years. "
2 million years is the human age.
"
About the whole argument, it really comes down to beleiving in God. If you believe in God, than you can accept the discrepiencies in
the Bible. If you don't believe in God, than you can't accept those descripancies. One leads to the other."
What you are basically saying is that since the Bible can no longer stand up to the harsh scrutiny of modern science, you are reverting to simple faith without all the extravagant claims made by the mystics who STARTED your particular religion(s)?
In other words the Bible [as a scientific manual] is no longer relevant, but you would rather abandon the bible than Christianity.
The problem is a belief in God doesn't suddenly explain away those MISTAKES which Moses, Jesus, etc. made. Essentially it's more Christian backdown - first the pope loses his infallibility [after Galileo, Luther, etc] now the actual religious figures are losing their credibility [with the advent of modern science].
"
Yeah but your taliking about a whole class of animals that lived over a period of a 200 million years than a small group from an order
of animals that lived for only 10 million years. "
2 million years is the human age.
"
About the whole argument, it really comes down to beleiving in God. If you believe in God, than you can accept the discrepiencies in
the Bible. If you don't believe in God, than you can't accept those descripancies. One leads to the other."
What you are basically saying is that since the Bible can no longer stand up to the harsh scrutiny of modern science, you are reverting to simple faith without all the extravagant claims made by the mystics who STARTED your particular religion(s)?
In other words the Bible [as a scientific manual] is no longer relevant, but you would rather abandon the bible than Christianity.
The problem is a belief in God doesn't suddenly explain away those MISTAKES which Moses, Jesus, etc. made. Essentially it's more Christian backdown - first the pope loses his infallibility [after Galileo, Luther, etc] now the actual religious figures are losing their credibility [with the advent of modern science].
No need to be sorry. It was really kind of subtle.
Yeah, thats it. Quoting Chris Rocks character in the excellent movie Dogma:
Better than believe, is to have ideas. You can change an idea. Now, changing a believe, thats trickier. People die and kill because of believes.
So you can say that Im in the group that considers evolution to be quite a good idea.
Well, about this what I said about the relative truth of bible is pretty much the same thing that is argued here. Despite the many flaws in all the sources of existence of God, people will still believe in him as an untouchable truth.
I second every word of The Troquelet on this, as it is, in fact, the essence of my first point in the discussion, only applied directly to God instead of the bible.
Regards
.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Becka
M AS IN MARTINI
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2001
- Messages
- 2,583
Now I don't think that's true in all cases. I do enjoy reading about such subjects to learn more about them (as time and money permits) and I do not immediately dismiss everything I read. I enjoy the pursuit of pure knowledge.
On the contrary, hardly ever do I (if ever have) characterize evolution as a senseless fairy tale, as has been done with my point of view, over and over and over and over and over again. (Don't you people have day jobs???
) You can call creationism a fairy tale/myth/legend/whatever all you like, but once you say it a few times, people get the idea. There is no need to over-compensate here- you don't have anything to prove to anybody here. 
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
And the point of your statement is?
PS
The creationists are not shy about repeating their point again and again...
With their fingers in their ears...
Point is, Becka,
Do you ever actually want to learn anything?
Or accept what is comforting to you?
PS
The creationists are not shy about repeating their point again and again...
With their fingers in their ears...
Point is, Becka,
Do you ever actually want to learn anything?
Or accept what is comforting to you?
).
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
These threads are a waste of time...
One half has a clue the other half 'believe' they have a clue.
I have seen at least a few intelligent posters here...there is hope for us.
The pro-science argument is in good hands, logic will triumph.
And evolution always wins these things when they go to the polls anyway...
Knock yerselves out, kids.
I'm done.
One half has a clue the other half 'believe' they have a clue.
I have seen at least a few intelligent posters here...there is hope for us.
The pro-science argument is in good hands, logic will triumph.
And evolution always wins these things when they go to the polls anyway...
Knock yerselves out, kids.
I'm done.
Originally posted by CurtSibling
These threads are a waste of time...
One half has a clue the other half 'believe' they have a clue.
I have seen at least a few intelligent posters here...there is hope for us.
The pro-science argument is in good hands, logic will triumph.
And evolution always wins these things when they go to the polls anyway...
Knock yerselves out, kids.
I'm done.
Come'on, Curt, don't give up.
Think of it as something like playing the yo-yo.
It's not about accomplishing anything...
...it's about the ups and downs.
Regards
.
HotDog Fish
Leftist Loyalist
Originally posted by CurtSibling
These threads are a waste of time...
One half has a clue the other half 'believe' they have a clue.
I have seen at least a few intelligent posters here...there is hope for us.
The pro-science argument is in good hands, logic will triumph.
And evolution always wins these things when they go to the polls anyway...
Knock yerselves out, kids.
I'm done.
This statement can be said about almost every thread unfortunatly nobody seems to learn from these threads, people here are so firmly entrenched on this forum nothing is achieved, but there's always at least a small chance something good comes of it. What I believe these threads are good for is seeing other peoples point of view, especially of those wacky right-wingers and see them disuade normal logic! BTW where the hell did you get that wacky smilie
newfangle
hates you.
I was pondering this subject last night and it dawned on me:
A mother contributes her genetic material and cytoplasmic contents to offspring (father just contributes genetic materials). In the cytoplasm we have mitochondria which have their own unique set of DNA. Basically, if we all sprung from Eve, we would all have the same mitochondrial DNA. This is course is NOT the case. Have fun with that literalists!
A mother contributes her genetic material and cytoplasmic contents to offspring (father just contributes genetic materials). In the cytoplasm we have mitochondria which have their own unique set of DNA. Basically, if we all sprung from Eve, we would all have the same mitochondrial DNA. This is course is NOT the case. Have fun with that literalists!
HotDog Fish
Leftist Loyalist
Once again your perfectly right, mitochondria is practically a self contained prokaryiote within a cell, and their DNA is inhereited from their parents and if people did come from a single man and woman (other than being horribly inbred) we would all have the SAME mitochondria
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Please forgive the tone, but it is the same as the tone of the posts that inspired it.
I have a stupid question:
Do mitochondria reproduce? Or are we going to someday run out of them as cells divide and split them up, and every human alive at that time will just keel over dead from the lack?
Follow-up stupid question:
If mitochondria do reproduce, how do they do it? Do they have little Star Trek replicators that always make them exactly the same, or little Star Wars cloning cylinders that make them exactly the same, or do they divide like all other life on earth, and occasionally suffer genetic modification via the transposing of base pairs during mRNA replication?
Stupid follow-up to my earlier stupid follow-up:
If the third method of mitochodrial reproduction is correct, then wouldn't the mitochondria in one CELL have different DNA, let alone the mitochondria in different organisms in the same species?
One last vastly ignorant stupid question:
Since everything we know about DNA and cell replication tells us that even 'identical' twins are different, genetically speaking, wouldn't it be the worst form of outright deception and disingenuity to even suggest that all human mitochondria would be the same if all humans could be traced back to one mother? I mean, wouldn't even bringing up such a thing in a public forum, as a means of trying to stifle the opposition in a debate be the worst sort of dishonest tactics and outright lying?
Well, I'm just some ignorant Creationist, so I couldn't possibly know anything about genetics or evolutionary theory. I mean honestly, just because I know how to read the Bible, one shouldn't make the assumption that I can read anything else...
I've been trying to stay out of these things, but after reading this pack of rubbish disguised as an argument, my sense of moral outrage demanded action. Just call me the Honesty in Debating Police. You're busted, newfangle, and I've got you on accesory to lie and obsfuscate, HotDogFish.
Oh, and FredLC:
"To imagine that all possible scientists in the Earth are biased, incompetent, misguided and hiding data in a worldwide conspiracy to validate a false hypothesis is rather paranoid."
It's only paranoid if it isn't true. Additionally, IIRC, not all scientists have backed the Darwinian Synthesis, or whatever it is being called these days. I might even go so far as to point out that ever since the ToE was embraced by the intellegentsia, they have gone out of their way to develop and use every tactic that Nazi Germany later perfected to propagandize its own agenda and scapegoat its opposition:
Open derision and contempt of opposing ideas.
Using misinformation and outright lies couched in technical terms to support favored beliefs.
Attacking the opposition's credibility by pointing out flaws unrelated to the matters at hand.
Repeating the big lie until it becomes true, or until the line between the lie and reality is distorted beyond perception.
(Naturally, and as usual, I will be swiftly reminded of that old chestnut about how the 'one sure sign that a side is losing the debate is when they compare their opponents to Nazi Germany.' Big lie, anyone? Tell me, does that still hold true when the comparision is 100% accurate?)
I have frequently, in my career as a ToE debater, run afoul of opponents who have used every one of these tactics, many with the facility and ease of long years of practice. When a theory's staunchest supporters can have that strong a comparision made between them and the Nazis, doesn't one need to become at least the tiniest bit critical of what they are saying?
When people openly admit that they base their research papers, not on their own research or findings, but on the research and findings of others, we do not question them? The fossils for the missing links haven't been found yet? If I were on trial for murder, and there was no weapon with bloody fingerprints to exonerate me, and there circumstantial evidence against me, could I get an acquittal based on the fact that the murder weapon that would prove me innocent merely hadn't been found yet? I doubt it, yet no one even suggests that this blind optimism is not justified on the part of evolution researchers. IS this double standard of trust justified, especially after the myriad hoaxes and frauds perpetrated in the name of Darwin? I think not.
I have a stupid question:
Do mitochondria reproduce? Or are we going to someday run out of them as cells divide and split them up, and every human alive at that time will just keel over dead from the lack?
Follow-up stupid question:
If mitochondria do reproduce, how do they do it? Do they have little Star Trek replicators that always make them exactly the same, or little Star Wars cloning cylinders that make them exactly the same, or do they divide like all other life on earth, and occasionally suffer genetic modification via the transposing of base pairs during mRNA replication?
Stupid follow-up to my earlier stupid follow-up:
If the third method of mitochodrial reproduction is correct, then wouldn't the mitochondria in one CELL have different DNA, let alone the mitochondria in different organisms in the same species?
One last vastly ignorant stupid question:
Since everything we know about DNA and cell replication tells us that even 'identical' twins are different, genetically speaking, wouldn't it be the worst form of outright deception and disingenuity to even suggest that all human mitochondria would be the same if all humans could be traced back to one mother? I mean, wouldn't even bringing up such a thing in a public forum, as a means of trying to stifle the opposition in a debate be the worst sort of dishonest tactics and outright lying?
Well, I'm just some ignorant Creationist, so I couldn't possibly know anything about genetics or evolutionary theory. I mean honestly, just because I know how to read the Bible, one shouldn't make the assumption that I can read anything else...
I've been trying to stay out of these things, but after reading this pack of rubbish disguised as an argument, my sense of moral outrage demanded action. Just call me the Honesty in Debating Police. You're busted, newfangle, and I've got you on accesory to lie and obsfuscate, HotDogFish.
Oh, and FredLC:
"To imagine that all possible scientists in the Earth are biased, incompetent, misguided and hiding data in a worldwide conspiracy to validate a false hypothesis is rather paranoid."
It's only paranoid if it isn't true. Additionally, IIRC, not all scientists have backed the Darwinian Synthesis, or whatever it is being called these days. I might even go so far as to point out that ever since the ToE was embraced by the intellegentsia, they have gone out of their way to develop and use every tactic that Nazi Germany later perfected to propagandize its own agenda and scapegoat its opposition:
Open derision and contempt of opposing ideas.
Using misinformation and outright lies couched in technical terms to support favored beliefs.
Attacking the opposition's credibility by pointing out flaws unrelated to the matters at hand.
Repeating the big lie until it becomes true, or until the line between the lie and reality is distorted beyond perception.
(Naturally, and as usual, I will be swiftly reminded of that old chestnut about how the 'one sure sign that a side is losing the debate is when they compare their opponents to Nazi Germany.' Big lie, anyone? Tell me, does that still hold true when the comparision is 100% accurate?)
I have frequently, in my career as a ToE debater, run afoul of opponents who have used every one of these tactics, many with the facility and ease of long years of practice. When a theory's staunchest supporters can have that strong a comparision made between them and the Nazis, doesn't one need to become at least the tiniest bit critical of what they are saying?
When people openly admit that they base their research papers, not on their own research or findings, but on the research and findings of others, we do not question them? The fossils for the missing links haven't been found yet? If I were on trial for murder, and there was no weapon with bloody fingerprints to exonerate me, and there circumstantial evidence against me, could I get an acquittal based on the fact that the murder weapon that would prove me innocent merely hadn't been found yet? I doubt it, yet no one even suggests that this blind optimism is not justified on the part of evolution researchers. IS this double standard of trust justified, especially after the myriad hoaxes and frauds perpetrated in the name of Darwin? I think not.
- Status
