Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Top Ten Signs You're a Foolish Atheist
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


Message 106 of 365 (651389)
02-07-2012 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Huntard
02-06-2012 4:20 PM


Re: Chariot Diversion
quote:
I don't know if "doctored" is the right word to use here either. i think it's perfectly reasonable to use this kind of imagery to prove a point,
It is - doc-tor v.tr. 3. a. To falsify or change in such a way as to make favorable to oneself: doctored the evidence.
quote:
however, I would say that you just can't project an image onto something, and then claim this proves it is exactly what you claim it is
Exactly.
quote:
To be fair, this isn't a clean axl, this is a computer genrated picture of an axl, superimposed upon a coral, I outlined the coral to make it more clear (roughly, it's of very poor quality):
I would say that doctoring is exactly the right word according to the definition above. The context of the image as presented is as photographic evidence of a scientific or archaeological claim. There is no mention of any alterations of the image on any site that uses it as evidence of the story. It qualifies as doctored evidence.
also definition c. To alter or modify for a specific end
The image as an object was modified i.e doctored. Local(?) usage of the term often refers specifically to images also. This is the context I was really using it in - the rest was me being pedantic
Other words I might use to describe what was done are misrepresented, falsified and fraudulent.
quote:
Of course, there needs to be said only one thing however: "any evidence these coral forms actually are chariot wheels?" Nothing more would be required.
Haven't heard about any real evidence yet. I believe I've (briefly) shown that what we've seen so far doesn't hold up. I don't expect (but do hope) that someone will step up and show me why I'm wrong - I only spent about ten minutes on it so far (once I actually found it), so it should be easy if the claims are true.
quote:
I would however be interested in the "coral does not grow on gold" claim. I am suspicious of it, but knowing hardly anything about coral, can't dismiss it outright. Any light you could shine on that? Thanks in advance.
I am interested and suspicious too. I haven't found any reference to it other than creationist sites linking to chariots. Rings alarm bells the size of elephants.
In reality, I don't know yet so I want to try the experiment. If I can graft a piece of acropora to a lump of gold, then we know. All I need is a piece of gold...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Huntard, posted 02-06-2012 4:20 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 02-07-2012 9:00 AM Warthog has replied

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


Message 107 of 365 (651390)
02-07-2012 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by dwise1
02-07-2012 3:00 AM


Re: The debate
That was great to read. It shows me that drawing people into dialogue can actually lead to the truth. Makes me hate the world a little less.
quote:
I looked down at my hands again, and studied them for a few moments longer...
"This is it..." I spoke to myself softly, "Welcome to the real world."
That is beautifully put. I'll bet that everyone who was brought up in even a moderately religious environment and broken free of the dogma has had this moment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by dwise1, posted 02-07-2012 3:00 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 108 of 365 (651393)
02-07-2012 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Warthog
02-07-2012 8:06 AM


Re: Chariot Diversion
I've been waiting for Buz or the other Wyatt supporters to produce evidence that there actually are chariot wheels in the coral for years - literally. All I've heard is a claim that there were signs of rust on the coral - and further claims that they meant some other form of corrosion after it was pointed out that Egyptian chariots didn't use iron.
In the last thread (the one I linked to earlier) Buz said that he would produce evidence but that he had to repeat the claims that had already been rebutted first without addressing the objections (I can't think of any sensible reason why that could be anything other than a waste of time). He later admitted that he had no such evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Warthog, posted 02-07-2012 8:06 AM Warthog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Warthog, posted 02-07-2012 10:20 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


Message 109 of 365 (651396)
02-07-2012 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by PaulK
02-07-2012 9:00 AM


Re: Chariot Diversion
quote:
I've been waiting for Buz or the other Wyatt supporters to produce evidence that there actually are chariot wheels in the coral for years - literally.
Yeah, figured that. But we can live in hope, right?
Posted that because I'd never heard of this one and just enjoyed dissecting it. Was prepared to shut up after that but got into a conversation.
I do have to admit to hoping someone, anyone would step up and at least try after all of the complaints I'm reading about bias. Especially since I have been told that all the evidence here, somewhere. Message 68 Sadly, I expect to be disappointed.
what all of this does do is to help explain why...
quote:
4. You accuse fundamental Christians of being intolerant, judgmental and hateful, while you foam at the mouth calling them freaking lunatics, ignorant, weak-minded, stupid fundies, and hateful bigots.
Doesn't make moral judgements about it but it does explain why.
It's all very scientific, don't you think?
The real irony is that the sea bed is littered with things which have no business being in the water. Even if there was proof of the wheels, it wouldn't automatically demonstrate the accuracy of the exodus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 02-07-2012 9:00 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by AdminModulous, posted 02-07-2012 11:55 AM Warthog has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


(2)
Message 110 of 365 (651404)
02-07-2012 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Warthog
02-07-2012 10:20 AM


Topic Diversion
The topic isn't really about evidence for the Exodus, God, the Bible or the like. It's about a list of 'signs' that a person is a 'foolish atheist'. The topic is a little loose, and side issues are perfectly permissable, but I'd rather the thread wasn't taken over by talk of chariot wheels and coral. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Warthog, posted 02-07-2012 10:20 AM Warthog has not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 111 of 365 (651476)
02-07-2012 5:10 PM


Chuck's item 5
Fred Hoyle calculated the chance of spontaneously assembling 2000 proteins, of 200 amino acids each, at 1 in 10 to power of 40,000.

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by subbie, posted 02-07-2012 5:17 PM Pollux has not replied
 Message 113 by PaulK, posted 02-07-2012 5:24 PM Pollux has not replied
 Message 114 by Drosophilla, posted 02-07-2012 5:38 PM Pollux has not replied
 Message 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-07-2012 11:46 PM Pollux has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 112 of 365 (651478)
02-07-2012 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Pollux
02-07-2012 5:10 PM


Re: Chuck's item 5
Please provide his calculations.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Pollux, posted 02-07-2012 5:10 PM Pollux has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Shield, posted 02-07-2012 5:42 PM subbie has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 113 of 365 (651483)
02-07-2012 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Pollux
02-07-2012 5:10 PM


Re: Chuck's item 5
In addition to Subbie's point please show that the model used by Hoyle accurately reflects the requirements for life to originate.
Anybody can do a calculation that produces an impressively low probability. Actually understanding how life might have originated to do a calculation that accurately estimates the probability of that event is a VERY different matter.
A crankish scientist making some silly assumptions is a long way from a valid calculation of the probability of a natural origin of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Pollux, posted 02-07-2012 5:10 PM Pollux has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 114 of 365 (651488)
02-07-2012 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Pollux
02-07-2012 5:10 PM


Re: Chuck's item 5
Fred Hoyle calculated the chance of spontaneously assembling 2000 proteins, of 200 amino acids each, at 1 in 10 to power of 40,000.
As Hoyle was a physicist and astronomer rather than a biochemist, his assertions on protein assembly could be called into question. He certainly didn't understand the combined working tenets of random mutation acted upon by non-random natural selection......otherwise he wouldn't have come up with your statement (which you don't source) nor his famous 'Hoyle's Fallacy (AKA 'Junkyard tornado' - Link to Wiki article ) which only goes to illustrate that Hoyle hadn't got a handle on the ToE.
Next !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Pollux, posted 02-07-2012 5:10 PM Pollux has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Coyote, posted 02-07-2012 8:58 PM Drosophilla has not replied

  
Shield
Member (Idle past 2862 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 115 of 365 (651489)
02-07-2012 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by subbie
02-07-2012 5:17 PM


Re: Chuck's item 5
According to Hoyle's analysis, the probability of cellular life evolving were about one-in-1040000. He commented:
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.
which is a reflection of his stance reported elsewhere:
Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?
Hoyle's Fallacy, sometimes called the junkyard tornado, is a term for Fred Hoyle's flawed statistical analysis applied to evolutionary origins, in which he compares the probability of cellular life evolving to the chance of a tornado "sweeping through a junkyard" and assembling a functional aeroplane.
Hoyle's Fallacy is rejected by evolutionary biologists, since, as the late John Maynard Smith pointed out, "no biologist imagines that complex structures arise in a single step." The modern evolutionary synthesis explains how complex cellular structures evolved by analysing the intermediate steps required for precellular life. It is these intermediate steps that are omitted in creationist arguments, which is the cause of their over-estimating of the improbability of the entire process.
Junkyard tornado - Wikipedia
Edited by rbp, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by subbie, posted 02-07-2012 5:17 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by subbie, posted 02-07-2012 5:45 PM Shield has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 116 of 365 (651491)
02-07-2012 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Shield
02-07-2012 5:42 PM


Re: Chuck's item 5
Thanks a lot, pal!
I was hoping my challenge to Pollux might be a learning opportunity for him, but you've queered that deal.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Shield, posted 02-07-2012 5:42 PM Shield has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Shield, posted 02-08-2012 6:49 PM subbie has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(2)
Message 117 of 365 (651495)
02-07-2012 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by dwise1
02-07-2012 3:00 AM


Re: The debate
Hi Dwise1
I love your amazingly detailed descriptions of the creationist position in the 80's and beyond. The conversion stories are moving - and also sad - all that wasted energy that could have gone to better use! And who knows the personal angst so many must have gone through on finding their creationist masters had lied to them - all so the great money machine could continue!
The con runs so deep - from the working class people conned by the shiny-suited televangelists, to those deluded holders of a 'diploma-mill' degree, who doubtless have thought they have worked hard and deserved their accreditation.
I don't know about 'foolish atheists' - but 'foolish creationists' seem ten a penny (as we say in Yorkshire, England)!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by dwise1, posted 02-07-2012 3:00 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by subbie, posted 02-07-2012 6:04 PM Drosophilla has seen this message but not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 118 of 365 (651498)
02-07-2012 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Drosophilla
02-07-2012 5:56 PM


Re: The debate
ten a penny
We're much more value conscious on this side of the pond; we say a dime a dozen.
Either way, I think we've both got same change coming.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Drosophilla, posted 02-07-2012 5:56 PM Drosophilla has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 119 of 365 (651527)
02-07-2012 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Drosophilla
02-07-2012 5:38 PM


Creationists' odds and other follies
Fred Hoyle calculated the chance of spontaneously assembling 2000 proteins, of 200 amino acids each, at 1 in 10 to power of 40,000.
As Hoyle was a physicist and astronomer rather than a biochemist, his assertions on protein assembly could be called into question. He certainly didn't understand the combined working tenets of random mutation acted upon by non-random natural selection......otherwise he wouldn't have come up with your statement (which you don't source) nor his famous 'Hoyle's Fallacy (AKA 'Junkyard tornado' - Link to Wiki article ) which only goes to illustrate that Hoyle hadn't got a handle on the ToE.
I've posted this before but never had a meaningful response by a creationist.
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture):
Page not found | UW Video
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
What this does is show how those massive odds against evolution that some folks calculate (or make up) are not an accurate model of what is really going on.
But then creationists don't seem to care if their models are accurate as long as they mirror the correct dogma.
(Aside: a creationist on another website was fond of telling us the odds against evolution were 1720. He couldn't understand why we laughed at him.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Drosophilla, posted 02-07-2012 5:38 PM Drosophilla has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 120 of 365 (651534)
02-07-2012 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Pollux
02-07-2012 5:10 PM


Re: Chuck's item 5
Fred Hoyle calculated the chance of spontaneously assembling 2000 proteins, of 200 amino acids each, at 1 in 10 to power of 40,000.
Two things to notice. First, since no-one claims that that's how life arose, the calculation is not germane.
Secondly, even if this was relevant, it suffers from the defect of most, perhaps all, such irrelevant calculations performed by creationists --- it doesn't have the word "per" in it. They talk as though whatever it was that caused life had one shot at happening, one time, one place, and if that didn't come off it wouldn't happen at all.
Any meaningful calculation has to go through a step where one calculates the likelihood of it happening per volume (e.g. per cubic meter of "primordial soup" or whatever) and per some unit of time.
Of course, since we don't know what the first life was or the conditions under which it arose, it is impossible for anyone to actually do such a calculation, but if it was then this is what they would have to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Pollux, posted 02-07-2012 5:10 PM Pollux has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Pressie, posted 02-08-2012 5:16 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 122 by Warthog, posted 02-08-2012 5:47 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024