Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Why TOE is not accepted
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6495 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 286 of 318 (228975)
08-02-2005 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
08-02-2005 7:53 PM


Genetic depletion?.
I answered this yesterday. The barrier is in the fact that there is no observed transcendance of a species either. What there is is simply variations on the kind/species that are artificially defined as "speciation" which obscures the reality of what is really going on. What are called new species are at least in some cases actually severely genetically depleted breeds, so depleted that they have lost the capacity to interbreed with the parent species, but also so depleted that they have no genetic capacity for further adaptation. It is a very strange idea that a new "species" would be exactly the genetic result that has the LEAST capacity to evolve beyond its current adaptation, or in some cases, such as the cheetah, that can't evolve in any direction whatever.
Can you define Genetic Depletion and provide any evidence that such a process occures. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 08-02-2005 7:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Faith, posted 08-02-2005 8:38 PM Yaro has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 287 of 318 (228976)
08-02-2005 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Yaro
08-02-2005 8:33 PM


Re: Genetic depletion?.
Not on this thread, no. Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Yaro, posted 08-02-2005 8:33 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Yaro, posted 08-02-2005 8:43 PM Faith has replied
 Message 290 by AdminNosy, posted 08-02-2005 8:46 PM Faith has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6495 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 288 of 318 (228977)
08-02-2005 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Faith
08-02-2005 8:38 PM


Re: Genetic depletion?.
hehe, is there already one? I really want to talk about it. I hear creos bring it up alot and I'm not clear on how it works

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Faith, posted 08-02-2005 8:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 08-02-2005 8:45 PM Yaro has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 289 of 318 (228978)
08-02-2005 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Yaro
08-02-2005 8:43 PM


Re: Genetic depletion?.
It's a science topic and I'm not allowed in science fora. I have merely been sucked into answering questions on this thread because of what I said in answer to the topic question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Yaro, posted 08-02-2005 8:43 PM Yaro has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 290 of 318 (228979)
08-02-2005 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Faith
08-02-2005 8:38 PM


Topic
Good job, Faith!
Yaro on the other hand for trying to continue an off topic, scientific detailed discussion gets a few hours of suspension.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Faith, posted 08-02-2005 8:38 PM Faith has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 291 of 318 (229040)
08-03-2005 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
07-29-2005 12:39 AM


where's the evidence?
But these people don't care about evidence. Evidence means nothing to them. What they care about is maintaining what they consider a way of life at any cost. In other words, their reason is political not philosophical.
Frankly, I find this increbily naive and reflective of indoctrinated thinking and not education.
On this forum, Faith and I are 2 people that have rejected evolution, and obviously care a great deal about the evidence, and spent a good bit of time learning the evidence.
For myself, I believed in evolution until about age 20-21. I was challenged that the evidence did not really support evolution as I was taught, and that I should take the time to look into the evidence for myself and then draw my own conclusions.
I did exactly that, and after doing so, felt most of what I had been taught was a lie, either totally fabricated and factually wrong, or overstated, and that's how I initially rejected ToE and still do so today.
I brought up Haeckel's drawings and got a lot of heat for it, but it illustrates the difference, imo, between me and most people that accept evolution. When I began to try to see what the data is for myself, I heard claims that Haeckel's drawings were wrong and that other depictions were falsely used and other false concepts used, I checked them those claims and found that the indeed the claims of misrepresentation were true. I had believed in ToE because of false claims, faked data, overstatements, etc,...
But when I tried to tell people that dogmatically accepted evolution, unless they were Christians or something, they laughed at the concept that faked data was being used. My Dad, a surgeon, recounted all the evidence he was taught in the 50s, and he thought it unbeleivable when I told him that data was incorrect.
Everyone I knew that accepted evolution had never bothered to look into the evidence for themselves but accepted it uncritically, and I knew a lot of very educated people.
Then, in the late 90s, evolutionists acted surprised at the Richardson study to discover that Haeckel's drawings were faked, just as they were surprised that the fossil record did not really back gradualism and needed something like Punctuated Equilibrium to try to resolve the problems.
That astonished me because here I was able to find out these problems existed as a 21 year old, but the evolutionist community were surprised.
That tells me they aren't really checking if the basic claims used to back evolution are correct. Perhaps they are spending so much time trying to shoot down any criticism, they aren't listening and making factual claims?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 07-29-2005 12:39 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Faith, posted 08-03-2005 8:36 AM randman has not replied
 Message 294 by robinrohan, posted 08-03-2005 9:07 AM randman has not replied
 Message 295 by nator, posted 08-03-2005 9:18 AM randman has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 292 of 318 (229092)
08-03-2005 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Philip
08-02-2005 7:37 PM


Re: Accepting Christ's Sayings and the ToE
So my stumbling-block remains thus:
1) The macro-biological ToE subtly but effectively debunks Christ’s sayings concerning Genesis.
2) The ToE seems diametrically opposed to faith in Christ as the cornerstone of *life*.
3) Faith in the Resurrection and the Life makes it all too *easy* to believe in a literal Genesis vs. the ToE (i.e., As per Heb 11:3 KJV, which plainly declares: Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear).
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Christ was the son of God. Now what exactly does this mean as concerns his actual mentality? We don't know, nor does a Christian have to know. There's no reason why we can't think that when Christ was made human, he was made a human in the full sense of that word. His scientific and other types of knowledge might have been on the same level as everyone else's. I myself prefer to think that when he asked someone a question, such as "What is your name?" he actually wanted to know, rather than that he was this omniscience walking around pretending to be human. After all, he did say that before this generation had passed, he would return. There is no reason why this full human mentality should take away at all from what's really important about him, from the Christian viewpoint. To me, assuming his mind (not his spirit) worked like everyone else's makes his life much meaningful and real.
I don't see what faith in the Resurrection and in eternal salvation has to do with the biological theory of evolution, which is only a description of how species evolved, and has nothing to do with spiritual concerns, has nothing to do with the possibility of an after-life.
Nobody knows what "mind" is, what that thing is we refer to as the inner "me," just like nobody knows what "energy" is.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 08-03-2005 07:35 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Philip, posted 08-02-2005 7:37 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Philip, posted 08-03-2005 11:39 AM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 293 of 318 (229093)
08-03-2005 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by randman
08-03-2005 3:26 AM


Re: where's the evidence?
My Dad, a surgeon, recounted all the evidence he was taught in the 50s, and he thought it unbeleivable when I told him that data was incorrect.
Your Dad and I are probably roughly the same generation then. I'm sure I got most of my notions about evolution in high school in the fifties though I'm also sure most of them remained unchallenged through to the 90s when I started reading creationism. If you don't keep up with it you can find yourself in the position of being shocked later at how much is now rejected as false, or even a hoax, that you had been taught was dogma -- or actually even if you do keep up with it, as I did read Darwin and read articles about evolution and did try to think it through from time to time.
When I was about twenty I sat and studied the magnificent many-pointed antlers on a mounted deer head in a vacation house where a bunch of friends and I were staying until I nearly drove myself batty trying to understand how those things could have evolved, considering all the false starts with a couple of small bumps on the head I figured had to happen first, followed by slightly bigger bumps, all in keeping with the slow-buildup-of-small-increments idea I had of evolution, none of which bumps I could see would have any particular survival value that would cause them to be selected, and so on. I brought it up with an older physicist friend of mine whose answer always was "You have to think in terms of great spans of time." Well, time really adds nothing to the problem. If there's no logical way you can figure it happening at all, then a million years for it to happen in isn't going to change that. However, I figured I was no scientist and evolution must be true because scientists said so.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-03-2005 08:47 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 3:26 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 12:05 PM Faith has replied
 Message 307 by robinrohan, posted 08-03-2005 12:34 PM Faith has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 318 (229096)
08-03-2005 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by randman
08-03-2005 3:26 AM


Brainwashed
Frankly, I find this increbily naive and reflective of indoctrinated thinking and not education
I suppose if one is "indoctrinated"--that is, brainwashed--one does not know that one is indoctrinated; otherwise one would cease to be indoctrinated. Perhaps you are the indoctrinated one. Perhaps your examination of the evidence was carried out in a biased fashion due to your indoctrination of which you are not aware. Just because you criticize something does not show that you are not indoctrinated with some other idea, such as the indoctrination of fundamentalist religious views, which allows you to pick out an error made by the compilers of textbooks and thus condemn an entire scientific theory.
One of the misconceptions I've come across frequently in creationists (due to my brainwashed views) is their notion that a "species" is some kind of essence--this notion of "kind." But the labeling of a particular two life forms as being separate species although having evolved from the same form is a merely classificational matter. If one wished to, one could classify species in some other way. It would be rather clumsy, but one could classify every slight change in a species as constituting a new species. So the emergence of blue-eyed people from a group of brown-eyed people (say) would constitute a new species. That way we could have a lot more species. We could multiphy the species of butterflies, for example, by counting all the variants as new species. If we changed the classification scheme, we could say that macroevolution occurs in practically every generation of practically every life form.
Due to my naive state of being brainwashed, it seems to me that once one recognizes that a "species" is a mere label of convenience, one begins to realize that "microevolution" as opposed to "macroevolution" has no meaning. This recognition was an epiphany in my indoctrination.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 08-03-2005 08:14 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 3:26 AM randman has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 295 of 318 (229100)
08-03-2005 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by randman
08-03-2005 3:26 AM


Re: where's the evidence?
Can you show me an example from peer-reviewed Evolutionary Biology papers which demonstrates incorrect methodology, incorrect findings, lies, distortions, or otherwise shoddy scientific work?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 3:26 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Yaro, posted 08-03-2005 11:41 AM nator has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 296 of 318 (229137)
08-03-2005 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by robinrohan
08-03-2005 8:32 AM


Re: Rejecting ToE for Faith
I have received your thoughtful *spiritual* feedback and hopefully will respond shortly while trying to stay on topic:
"Why the ToE is not accepted" ...i.e., by fundys (without trying to beg fundy-religion, predestination, *the fewest miracles*, etc.)
One other small point might be added (for anyone to lurk upon):
1) When science (per se) supports *my faith* it helps that faith become more bullet-proof (against my doubts and hopelessness). As I do podiatric medicine, surgery, cut toenails, etc., I often rejoice in the exquisite anatomical and histological entities as fearfully and wonderfully made (vs. arbitrarily evolved or something) and look *toward heaven* instead of toward *endless genealogies*.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by robinrohan, posted 08-03-2005 8:32 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 12:13 PM Philip has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6495 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 297 of 318 (229138)
08-03-2005 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by nator
08-03-2005 9:18 AM


Re: where's the evidence?
Don't do it schraf! Your not supposed to ask for scientific evidence in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by nator, posted 08-03-2005 9:18 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by CK, posted 08-03-2005 11:43 AM Yaro has not replied
 Message 299 by nator, posted 08-03-2005 11:43 AM Yaro has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 298 of 318 (229139)
08-03-2005 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Yaro
08-03-2005 11:41 AM


Re: where's the evidence?
Step AWAY from the textbook...put down the measurement tools...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Yaro, posted 08-03-2005 11:41 AM Yaro has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 299 of 318 (229140)
08-03-2005 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Yaro
08-03-2005 11:41 AM


Re: where's the evidence?
So, randman is allowed to say whatever disparaging, slanderous thing he wants to about science but doesn't have to back it up?
Great.
Forget these fora, then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Yaro, posted 08-03-2005 11:41 AM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by CK, posted 08-03-2005 11:56 AM nator has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 300 of 318 (229146)
08-03-2005 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by nator
08-03-2005 11:43 AM


I've figured it out!! (and I didn't need to mention science)
Xenu - Wikipedia
quote:
They were captured by Xenu's forces using an "electronic ribbon" ("which also was a type of standing wave") and sucked into "vacuum zones" around the world. The hundreds of billions of captured thetans were taken to a type of cinema, where they were forced to watch a "three-D, super colossal motion picture" for 36 days. This implanted what Hubbard termed "various misleading data" (collectively termed the R6 implant) into the memories of the hapless thetans, "which has to do with God, the Devil, space opera, etcetera". This included all world religions, with Hubbard specifically attributing Roman Catholicism and the image of the Crucifixion to the influence of Xenu. The interior decoration of "all modern theaters" is also said by Hubbard to be due to an unconscious recollection of Xenu's implants. The two "implant stations" cited by Hubbard were said to have been located on Hawaii and Las Palmas in the Canary Islands.
In addition to implanting new beliefs in the thetans, the images deprived them of their sense of identity. When the thetans left the projection areas, they started to cluster together in groups of a few thousand, having lost the ability to differentiate between each other.
It's obvious - Randman,Faith and others were presented with a different movie to the rest of us - they cannot accept TOE because they saw a different in-flight movie on the way down from space.
See we don't need to mention science in this fora - just scientology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by nator, posted 08-03-2005 11:43 AM nator 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