DAD 20165: Yours is the first good argument I've seen to this.

Why? It's not even entirely accurate.

DAD 20165: the bible isn't just a collection of good stories for the kiddies.

I would hope not. It's one of the most perverse books ever written, full of rape, incest, genocide, torture, suffering, misery, confusion and death, and all at the behest of a vengeful, fickle, capricious jealous violent God who, for most of the book, expressed nothing other than extreme selfishness and total contempt for mankind.

DAD 20165: Some of the laws and other prohibitions in it are grounded in scientific fact.

They thought that bats were birds (Leviticus 11:13-19), insects had four legs (Leviticus 11:20), rabbits chew cud (Leviticus 11:6), doctors can't cure people as well as God (2 Chronicles 16:12-13), the number Pi was 3 (1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2), ostriches didn't take care of their eggs (Job 39:13-16), stars were smaller than the Earth (Revelation 8:10), the moon had its own light source (Isaiah 13:10), the Earth existed before the sun (Genesis 1:1), and they knew absolutely nothing about female physiology (Deuteronomy 22:13-16). They also thought the heart, not the brain, was the center of thought, emotion and moral understanding (dozens of references, but especially Luke 6:45). There's also some 60 references, give or take, to the Earth being a flat circular disk, a flat square, fixed, supported by pillars or a foundation of some sort, surrounded by water, unmoving, unchanging or at the center of the solar system. Whenever they describe the dimensions of the Earth, there's never any mention of it being a sphere, circling the sun, or rotating on an axis.

DAD 20165: And is still to young to explain how say we evolved to what we are today.cbut that won't keep the nut jobs from saying God did it I believe it or the uber scientist from saying we evolved from organic green slime either or I don't care. But to continue fighting over stuff we don't understand at that level fully yet is just dumb.

Ah yes, the Argument from Ignorance.

The problem with this attitude is that it is defeatist. Since we do not know the ultimate answers now, we probably won't ever know them so why bother trying to even understand natural phenomenon? You're essentially saying we should all throw our hands in the air and give up.

But here's the thing: Once upon a time we thought that diseases were the work of sorcery, lightning was divine punishment, comets were harbingers of doom, rainbows had a pot of gold, insanity was possession by evil spirits, and the sun and moon were magical orbs that traded turns in the sky. Did science stop studying these things just because there were already sufficient answers for them and any naturalistic explanation is superfluous (or even futile)? Of course not. Science is extremely hostile to what it doesn't understand specifically BECAUSE it doesn't understand.

Today, we have annihilated the mysticism in those things because we sought to understand them and we discovered microorganisms, electricity, astronomy, the refraction of light through water molecules, psychiatric disorders, and the composition of heavenly bodies and the effects of gravity on mass. As we learn more about the Universe, the domain of the supernatural keeps shrinking.

We are now on the cusp of doing the same -- finding a naturalistic explanation -- for life origins and the ultimate beginning of everything, and we can hardly blame science for expecting this trend to continue.

0z79: BTW, re-read some of these posts, people here have all but called me an idiot.

To be fair, you have behaved very much like an idiot (your very Boobies called theists open-minded and criticized opponents of that so-called "open-mindedness", and then you dared to say atheists are worse than ID advocates).

The problem isn't that you're behaving like an idiot, it's that you're acting like this xkcd:


And you've been very defensive and condescending when called out on it.

You're either a Poe or a troll.

Ishkur: 0z79: BTW, re-read some of these posts, people here have all but called me an idiot.

To be fair, you have behaved very much like an idiot (your very Boobies called theists open-minded and criticized opponents of that so-called "open-mindedness", and then you dared to say atheists are worse than ID advocates).

The problem isn't that you're behaving like an idiot, it's that you're acting like this xkcd:
[imgs.xkcd.com image 373x330]

And you've been very defensive and condescending when called out on it.

You're either a Poe or a troll.

Or maybe I'm just sick of everyone calling me an idiot; fundies for believing there's a universe beyond the solar system; atheists for believing there's a purpose behind what we see, hear and feel.

0z79: Or maybe I'm just sick of everyone calling me an idiot;

That's because you are being an idiot.

0z79: fundies for believing there's a universe beyond the solar system; atheists for believing there's a purpose behind what we see, hear and feel.

And this is what makes you an idiot: Neither fundies nor atheists believe these things; in fact in some cases they believe the exact opposite.

It's starting to look like you don't even know what a fundie or an atheist is.

Which makes you an excellent Poe. Well done.

0z79:

I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"



I am not aware of having done so.


0z79: /just realized that floyda is a masterful troll, not the college kid he pretends to be


I am beginning to develop an opinion regarding your reading comprehension skills.

Ishkur: 0z79: Or maybe I'm just sick of everyone calling me an idiot;

That's because you are being an idiot.

0z79: fundies for believing there's a universe beyond the solar system; atheists for believing there's a purpose behind what we see, hear and feel.

And this is what makes you an idiot: Neither fundies nor atheists believe these things; in fact in some cases they believe the exact opposite.

It's starting to look like you don't even know what a fundie or an atheist is.

Which makes you an excellent Poe. Well done.

Saying I don't know the difference between a fundie, atheist or agnostic... really?

C'mon, admit it. Sometime in the recent past you came down on someone way harder than they deserved, to the point of abuse; you can't deal with your own guilty conscience so you're projecting onto others.

How so very sad... what a lack of self-awareness.

:p

FloydA: 0z79:

I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"



I am not aware of having done so.


0z79: /just realized that floyda is a masterful troll, not the college kid he pretends to be


I am beginning to develop an opinion regarding your reading comprehension skills.

I just can't wait until someone else is drunk and rambling on here... that'll be fun.

First, it depends on what level of instruction; K-12 is a lot different fom college undergrad. Second, abysmally ignorant is always another option.

0z79: FloydA: 0z79:

I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"



I am not aware of having done so.


0z79: /just realized that floyda is a masterful troll, not the college kid he pretends to be


I am beginning to develop an opinion regarding your reading comprehension skills.

I just can't wait until someone else is drunk and rambling on here... that'll be fun.

OK, so point out where I said anything that could even remotely be misinterpreted as "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

Or were you just making things up?

FloydA: 0z79: FloydA: 0z79:

I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"



I am not aware of having done so.


0z79: /just realized that floyda is a masterful troll, not the college kid he pretends to be


I am beginning to develop an opinion regarding your reading comprehension skills.

I just can't wait until someone else is drunk and rambling on here... that'll be fun.

OK, so point out where I said anything that could even remotely be misinterpreted as "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

Or were you just making things up?

Drunk, upset and projecting, man.. Apologies.

/has been harassed... a lot
//sometimes comes out in weird ways

RussianPooper: The 6000 year thing is kind of a fringe

Circa 30% in the US. Add another 15% if you include the OEC types who think that was about when humans showed up, even though the planet is older.

RussianPooper: They're unfortunately close to the majority, in fact

Counting OEC and ID, again about 30%, even excluding the 30% YEC.

TopoGigo: If you'd like to discuss intelligent design, you'll receive an F."

Probably better to dump a computational complexity textbook like Sipser on them, and saying that's the first bit of required background math; and the second will require mastering that, first.

DAD 20165: I'm not saying it's not fact but it seems to me if people were confident in evolution it would be the laws of evolution not still a theory.

Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence.
Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.

0z79:
Drunk, upset and projecting, man.. Apologies.

/has been harassed... a lot
//sometimes comes out in weird ways

It's rare someone on Fark offers a Mea Culpa. I'll remove the unkind farky I gave you.

DjangoStonereaver: I've just realized: No Bevets sighting in this thread.
TommyJReed: You fool! Speak not his name, lest you draw him and his walls of copypasta into the thread.

Check his profile. He appears to have retired; there's a link to the final (apparent) post he made.

Eleri: I know it feels good to believe that people are educated and intelligent, but the most recent poll I can find shows that 46% of those within the United States are young earth creationists.

Actually, the way Gallup asks the question tends to lump in the ~30% Young-Earth with the ~15% Old-Earth. But that's a cosmetic detail that doesn't affect the rest of your post.

yves0010: And after that, though no physical changes happened on the macro scale of evolution, micro evolution did happen.

Sigh. Canned response....

Microevolution refers to genetic mutations which are able to diffuse (especially via reproduction) within a population group. When a population is divided by a barrier (geologic or genetic) which precludes future diffusion between subgroups, it is referred to as speciation. Microevolutionary developments in one group unable to diffuse across the species barrier are considered macroevolutionary with respect to the other group.

While the rate of speciation is low (on the order of per species-megayear, depending in part on time to reproductive maturity), the large number of species on earth has resulted in several dozen speciations being recorded in the literature since Darwin's time.

The most common response to this is that these are "not really" speciations, since "it's still the same kind". This response reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the theory of evolution works.

When a species barrier arises, the organism does not become an ENTIRELY new species; rather, it becomes a MORE specific species. Humans, therefore, are technically a sub-species of hominid-catarrhine-primate-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral -eumetazoan-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. After becoming distinct sub-species, any novel mutation in one is thus macroevolutionary with respect to the other.

Given that we KNOW species barriers can arise with time, it is a reasonable inference that extant barriers may not have always existed. Fossil evidence supports this. EG, searching back, we can find example some fossils showing resemblance to modern seals and some to weasels; and the older those appearing ancestral to seals are, the closer they are to resembling ancestral forms of the weasels. Thus, weasels are considered mustelid-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial- bilateral-eumetazoan-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life, whereas seals are considered pinniped-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial- bilateral-eumetazoan-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. This inference is additionally supported by modern genetic sequencing, which indicates considerable overlap between the modern forms, with the distinguishing sequences consistent with mutations of the same type as observed in the lab, and in an degree consistent with the expectations from observed rate-of-mutation in present and from the time estimates of the fossil record.

Rockstone: Anyone who claims faith and science are not compatible are fools.

Depends on which premises you take on "Faith".

HindiDiscoMonster: When people get insulted, they simply shut down the logical side of their brain, and nothing can penetrate that wall.

Experimentally, that's an oversimplification to the point of inaccuracy.
I can dredge up the citation, if you're really curious.

wippit: IE: would they be classified as separate species?

They wouldn't; however, the barrier between species is fuzzier than was thought in Darwin's time. You might read this comment elsewhere, along with the response, the article prompting it, and the preceding.

walkingtall: Life did not start from non life to become a singe celled creature then evolve to multi celled then evolved into simpler animals and plants then evolve into land animals and plants then evolve into dinosaurs then evolve into mammals which then evolved into ape which then evolved into us. That is evolution theory in a nutshell.

Not really. Slightly better nutshell, though it's long overdue for some work.

0z79: Saying I don't know the difference between a fundie, atheist or agnostic... really?

Considering we've just had a 300+ post thread about it and you still don't understand.... yes.

Kome: Did you know that if you flip a fair coin 1,000,000 times, you'll get several dozen occurrences of 100+ heads in a row. Purely by chance.

Your math is off. You're very unlikely to get above about 20.

walkingtall: If you take a simple computer code and just randomly replace an e with i or remove a semicolon those are called bugs. Mutations are same thing. No computer programmer worth his salt would try and claim that if you scramble enough of the computer code eventually you will get a better code. It doesnt work that way.

Actually, it can; the field is called "evolutionary algorithms". (There's a simple example in this video.)

More to the point, yes, detrimental (net negative benefit) mutations are more common at the outset; however, mutations have a non-zero possibility for a net positive benefit (in the evolutionary sense of "benefit"). Furthermore, both types have the same propogation on p(t)=p₀e^Bt (first order, until resource limits provide logistic growth curve limits) -- which means, the more detrimental mutations almost immediately (in geologic time) vanish, while beneficial mutations almost instantly take over.

Additionally, the most common mutations of all apparently have almost zero effect; the typical human has about 100 mutations not inherited from their parents. There's a slightly different equation for how those propagate.

walkingtall: What it doesnt address and cant address is how new code would be created.

Any change in code yields a "new" code. DNA replication is low-error, but non-zero; the occasional loose gamma ray can provide bit flips. What you appear to be trying to suggest is that IMPROVED code can't come about... which I address above. I'll further note, a change from AGATTA to AGCTTA is roughly as easy as the reverse. The possibility of improvement is implicit in the possibility for diminishing.

0z79: God exists

Do you take this as a primary premise ("on Faith"), or is this held justified by some priors and subject to change if they do ("as inference")? If the latter, which?

I believe because I believe, so there. :p

Sorry, not arguing with people who will consider me stupid, no matter what I say. Stuff it, prick.

CheapEngineer: 0z79: I believe because I believe, so there. :p

Sorry, not arguing with people who will consider me stupid, no matter what I say. Stuff it, prick.

You could put this caption under the picture of almost any Republican politician, and it would fit like a glove.

\big wet kiss on your forehead

We're discussing a belief very near and dear to my heart.. considering just how condescending Ishkur, et al have been.... I believe I've been quite civil.

Jerk. >:)

johnryan51: One fossil of a modern dog,cat,rabbit etc. That's all they need to find to disprove evolution.

Actually, given the evidence for evolution, that would at best indicate a minor modification, and suggest physicists should look more into closed timelike loops.

0z79: I've found a way to reconcile two belief systems

The question is, is it more interesting than "ignore implicit/explicit inconsistencies" or than "assume something, despite it otherwise being more probably wrong"?

Ed Grubermann: I'm sorry, but what part of science is a "belief system"?

Acceptance that evidence has a pattern, among other parts. Most of the rest is inherited from mathematics, to give enough language to say "pattern".

abb3w: johnryan51: One fossil of a modern dog,cat,rabbit etc. That's all they need to find to disprove evolution.

Actually, given the evidence for evolution, that would at best indicate a minor modification, and suggest physicists should look more into closed timelike loops.

0z79: I've found a way to reconcile two belief systems

The question is, is it more interesting than "ignore implicit/explicit inconsistencies" or than "assume something, despite it otherwise being more probably wrong"?

Ed Grubermann: I'm sorry, but what part of science is a "belief system"?

Acceptance that evidence has a pattern, among other parts. Most of the rest is inherited from mathematics, to give enough language to say "pattern".

It's more a a gut-level thing; it certainly feels like I'm slugged there every time someone calls me stupid for having faith.

kg2095: They can actually explain anything away by saying that god is all powerful and can do anything and make anything happen.

When you get to formalizing "explanation" into mathematics, that's actually a problem, since it therefore doesn't explain why he did any particular thing.

Bhruic: Simply because the earth is only ~7000-10000 years old, which simply isn't enough time for any sort of large-scale evolution to have taken place.

Ignoring that the creationist claim of diversification from core baramin (the "kinds" saved from the flood on the Ark) has to have been a lot faster than evolution would ordinarily allow.

0z79: I believe because I believe, so there. :p

Sounds like type 2, in the Albert's formulation of the Münchausen trilemma.

Or alternatively, "assertion of confidence", considered as persuasion resistance methods, in the terminology from (doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5).

0z79: Sorry, not arguing with people who will consider me stupid, no matter what I say. Stuff it, prick.

Was that directed at me? I'm not sure how I could have expressed my disagreement much more politely with anything resembling accuracy, and I don't think I gave much in the way of value judgements.

0z79: I believe I've been quite civil.
Jerk. >:)

Hardly turning the other cheek.

0z79: It's more a a gut-level thing; it certainly feels like I'm slugged there every time someone calls me stupid for having faith.

Well, if you want a little reassurance -- among those who believe the Bible, higher intelligence is correlated to higher religiosity. (It's reverse correlated, among those who consider it mere fables.)

You might consider why you're sensitive about that.

abb3w: kg2095: They can actually explain anything away by saying that god is all powerful and can do anything and make anything happen.

When you get to formalizing "explanation" into mathematics, that's actually a problem, since it therefore doesn't explain why he did any particular thing.

Bhruic: Simply because the earth is only ~7000-10000 years old, which simply isn't enough time for any sort of large-scale evolution to have taken place.

Ignoring that the creationist claim of diversification from core baramin (the "kinds" saved from the flood on the Ark) has to have been a lot faster than evolution would ordinarily allow.

0z79: I believe because I believe, so there. :p

Sounds like type 2, in the Albert's formulation of the Münchausen trilemma.

Or alternatively, "assertion of confidence", considered as persuasion resistance methods, in the terminology from (doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5).

0z79: Sorry, not arguing with people who will consider me stupid, no matter what I say. Stuff it, prick.

Was that directed at me? I'm not sure how I could have expressed my disagreement much more politely with anything resembling accuracy, and I don't think I gave much in the way of value judgements.

0z79: I believe I've been quite civil.
Jerk. >:)

Hardly turning the other cheek.

Not at all, I've forgotten who it was directed at in the first place, must mean it wasn't important.