Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/23/2019 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    This is a great example of what is called anecdotal evidence. Who among the 16 were part of the control group and who were not? What variables/factors were controlled for, etc.? Determining cause and effect relationships between medicine W, patient X, disease Y, environment Z, etc. can be very complicated....and the reason being is that there are usually many external factors and variables that effect the outcomes. This is why medical research use control groups, tiered testing to isolate variables, pyramid and Baysian statistics, etc. And, even then, sometime it's not possible to establish a cause-and-effect relationship with any statistical confidence. So, without context, your statement is meaningless to me. Put it another way, my understanding is that covid-19 mortality rate is about 1%. So, the odds of all 16 people surviving is about 85%. So, saying that these people survived because they took this drug (something that the Trumpster would certainly do) is pretty stupid. Again, why is Trump pushing any particular medical solution on his own volition (whether it be this Malaria drug, injecting yourself with disinfectants, etc.) when he has absolutely zero credibility and knowledge of such things.....seems a pretty reckless thing to do for the president of the US. If you want to expedite drugs without the necessary testing protocol, then let's let the experts...particularly those who have experience with this type of virus.....as well as those who understand the negative repercussions of such moves (including the effects on those people that currently rely heavily on that particular drug) make the recommendations. Not the Trumpster. He is unequivocally NOT qualified.....sorry to those with TWS....
  2. 3 points
    caveat, provide a link. Dude, a link is not a copy-paste of over 3,000 words (according to Word) plus a bunch of pictures.
  3. 3 points
    Exactly, and it sounds like a bit weird that all cells have something call DNA, which basically is a set of instructions... that sounds too familiar to what a computer does, isn't? And I cannot image see an iPhone created spontaneously (it would be great though , but the reality is that is not happening)
  4. 3 points
    I am going to blunt here. Your and Pi's forum posting etiquette in this thread is the worst I have seen anywhere; forget double posts, you posted nine different messages back to back prior to my message, and half the time you are not quoting the people you are adressing. Before that, Pi had four consequetive messages back to back. This makes just following the conversation very tedious, and backtracking more than day or two looking for a singular link a unreasonable chore. Also, you still didnt post a link. However I did manage to find the article from the site, I think: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300996 Its a study on 36 patients(20 who received treatment and 16 control. Six patients dropped out mid study, one due to death). That is a very small sample size. However, it did show results, but particular results with certain dozage and used with another drug called Azithromycin. The dozage especially is important, as chloroquine is toxic, and has killed corona patients in, I think it was Brazilian treatment trial, which was aborted. The same journal also has a response to that study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0399077X20300858?via%3Dihub In which they had eleven people, and received negative results on the effect of chloroquine. The results are far from conclusive. From what I have read, I am leaning towards cloroquin probably having some level of positive effects with careful dozage, early administration, and medium risks of adverse effects. I would hesitate to call it "life saving" yet, as the sample sizes have been diminiutive and the covid death-rate is relatively low. But I am not a doctor, nor a specialist in virology anyway, so my musings are not authorative. No, I do not.
  5. 3 points
    Mike didn't kill it; I've just been swamped in real life the past few weeks. I got maybe 3 hours of sleep in the past 65+ hours now lol. My system is so full of caffeine you could harvest my blood and sell it as an energy drink. I've been working on a response piece-meal when I've had the time. It should be ready in a few days. Real life is starting to calm down. If anything, Mike probably saved the discussion by moving it to a new thread where it wouldn't get buried while real life does its thing.
  6. 3 points
    Thought I'd use my 5,000th post to recognize the Forum's 15th anniversary. The earliest members are in early March, 2005. When I brought this up at the 10th anniversary, Fred commented the first posts were in April. Either way, for a forum like this to remain active after 15 years is quite a feat. My thanks and congratulations to Fred and others past and present who have made this forum a success. 
  7. 3 points
    really? 97% of the primate fossil tree is missing. 100% of the transitionals between phyla are missing. there is exactly zero evidence that life arose naturally, science goes so far as to state it's fundamentally without explanation and DID NOT arrive here by any kind of accumulation.
  8. 3 points
    God's creation is not a lie. Fallible men often will misinterpret the evidence. The men are the liars.
  9. 3 points
    The latest paper from Schweitzer et al continues the practice of inconsistency. Earlier in the paper it is "vessel-like" but then she uses "The scientists raised antibodies against all components of the extant vasculature to observe positive binding in the dinosaur vessel walls." "The dinosaur vessels also indicated the presence of type I collagen antibodies, although elastin antibodies showed greater intensity. " "Their vascular affinities have been supported through the application of varied independent methods to identify endogenous component proteins3,4, including collagen, which is not produced by microbes5, " "Mass spectrometry sequencing of isolated vessels recovered from the cortical bone of a non-avian dinosaur further supported the presence of vertebrate-specific vascular proteins in isolated dinosaurian vessels7. " https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51680-1 "Antibodies raised against ostrich haemoglobin10 also showed positive binding, although at comparatively lower intensity (Fig. 4m,n). No reactivity was seen for vessels exposed to antibodies against bacterial peptidoglycan (Fig. 4o,p), eliminating the possibility that these structures arose from microbial contamination45." Firstly, the actual published research itself uses wording that indicates they are talking about dinosaur blood cells. "Haemoglobin, the major protein within vertebrate erythrocytes (red blood cells), is abundant in highly vascularised bone. When released during post mortem haemolysis, haemoglobin protein can interact with and adsorb onto surrounding tissues; in modern vertebrates, haemoglobin imparts a red hue to bone and the walls of blood vessels10. Thus, these proteins constitute a reasonable suite of targets for IHC techniques, and their in situ identification in fossil blood vessels supports their endogeneity. " TRANSLATION: their methods identified hemoglobin which is the major component of red blood cells. But she wants to remain very sciency in this paper. However she decided to title her own paper about her finding, which was not in a science journal, "Blood from Stone." Maybe we should just stop talking about red blood cells and only speak about osteocytes and blood vessels, terms which she has no problem using. If we stopped doing that, would you stop trying to make a mountain out of that molehill and focus on the fact that there are indeed tissues present which ought to not be there? Nah... I didn't think so!
  10. 3 points
    I had the same problem with what if. He either is too smart or too dumb to communicate his thoughts...or he chooses to be purposefully evasive. Probably because if he had the guts to stake out his true beliefs plainly he feels he'd have trouble defending them. It's easier to just stack together some tricky words so that he can continue an endless game of plausible deniability.
  11. 3 points
    Listen and listen good.. I asked for a plausible evolutionary order for man's VITAL organs from 1through 10.. You claimed that he gave a "partial" order" which is a LIE. And THEN ASSERT that "there is no successive 1-10 Order" Which of course is TRUE as EVOLUTION NEVER HAPPENED.. If there IS NO successive 1 to 10 order, (As you finally admit!) HOW CAN YOU CLAIM THAT HE GAVE A "PARTIAL ORDER"??? When there is no order?? You see, everyone is a Creationist at heart.. Everyone KNOWS that the fairytale of Evolutionism is impossible and is a lie.. You dont have to remain in the closet just for philosophical reasons, I just dont appreciate being called a "Liar" by someone who is lying when they make the FALSE ACCUSATION that I am the one who is "Lying" when CORRECTLY pointing out or that he completely DODGED my question just like you did again with your "There is no successive 1 to 10 order".. CREATIONISTS ALREADY KNOW THAT!! So AGAIN..With your assertion.. "Stop lying Blitzking. He did give a partial order" Here is list of mans 10 VITAL organs.. Pancreas / U Intestine / Kidneys / L Intestine / Heart / Skin / Brain / Lungs / Liver / Stomach Did he give ANY order? NO!!! Which VITAL organ evolved (OR COULD HAVE EVOLVED) 1st? 2nd? 3rd? 4th? 5th? 6th? 7th? 8th? 9th? 10th.??? NOPE..NOT EVEN CLOSE.. I dont expect an apology from you and dont even want one, BUT NEVER SIT THERE AND FALSELY CALL ME A LIAR (WHEN YOU ARE THE REAL LIAR) AGAIN.... GOT IT? Best wishes. JT
  12. 2 points
    this is exactly what koonin addressed in his paper. all animal phyla appeared abruptly and fully formed WITH NO INTERMEDIATES (no transitionals) during the cambrian explosion. please don't drag out the mainstream explanation because koonin has already dismissed that as unreliable. yes, i believe woese referred to that content as outmoded 19th century concepts. koonin said something similar, calling them victorian concepts that belonged in a museum. darwin could not have imagined evolution of the 21st century. evolution, as i know it to be, does not rule out a god or some other form of intelligence.
  13. 2 points
    "For a scientist, this sort of thing is enough to drive a person crazy" Only for the scientists who try to keep on shoving square pegs into round holes and try to explain away our existence WITHOUT the need for the creative input of a Supernatural Intelligence Agent (God) .. Scientists like THIS for example.. Professor Richard Lewontin, geneticist and one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.
  14. 2 points
    If you happen to find any of the 35 I've lost over the last year, you're welcome to keep 'em.
  15. 2 points
    clinically verified isn't exactly a "controlled environment". this is where doctors give patients a new drug and on their next visit they are asked "did it work". if they said yes then it has been "clinically verified".
  16. 2 points
    hey, when did you become captain horatio hornblower? man, i need to get out more.
  17. 2 points
    I think we all agree, however THIS topic is not about evolution and there are plenty of other topics which ARE. I originally started it because I thought it would be interesting to discuss the linkage between a belief in young Earth and the idea that Trump was better than the Democrat alternatives. So of course there was a tangential connection.
  18. 2 points
    No. You can hit every row by choosing the right elevation angles. For example you can hit the 1st row with a near vertical launch angle and a near horizontal launch angle.
  19. 2 points
    "He listed several examples" Based on WHAT? You need to remember that we are talking about an indoctrinated died in the wool evolutionist!! "Why do you think any of that is what we should see if evolution happened?" Well, since according to the fairytale, a microbe evolved into all flora and fauna SLOWLY over more than a few billion years I assume that legs disnt pop out of the first vertebrates fully formed and strong, or is this where the "hopeful Monsters" idea comes into play?
  20. 2 points
    That seems mighty convenient. The Bible is superior to popes because it doesn't make scientific mistakes like they do. Atheists certainly won't give the Bible the kind of pass you are giving to the erroneous popes. The Catholic Church will change whatever it wants to change whenever it wants to do it, based on what the politics of the day are. When I was a kid, it was a sin to eat fish on Friday and now it isn't. My guess is, if I researched it, there would be a dozen other similar things which were sinful in the past but no longer are.
  21. 2 points
    Actually, my recollection is that every time I try to bring up biology you blow it off. You say that you don't like biology even though you have been required to teach it from time to time. I wouldn't say that we have really discussed it much at all. Not if you understand the meaning of "discuss" to be a two-way street. As I pointed out above, the person I have seen who seems to have the most recognition in this very specific area of the degradation of proteins (Collins), has declared that the idea that Schweitzer has put forth to explain the dino soft tissue, is a load of bunk. He would not agree with your statement about there being all the myriad of factors which can delay the degradation of proteins. He has in essence said that if you combine all those together the best you can hope for is a hundred thousand years. The only reason they are considered to be hundreds of millions of years old is because that is what is required by evolution.
  22. 2 points
    Oh look, a christian who lowers himself to name calling. What a novelty...
  23. 2 points
    These quotes are Popoi being quoted. Can't find where he originally said it, don't know how behind the times I am here, and whether they're to me or to BK. Here Popoi misses the point. He thinks attacking an analogy and showing it has no basis literally, will mean the argument intended to attack the thing the analogy represents is then wrong. But the "chicken and egg" phrase is usually just a colloqiual type phrase people use. I was not claiming that the chicken and egg scenario is a literally true thing, or isn't. I was actually saying if Popoi was to fully focus on my argument, that there are things which exist, cycles, whereby to have the cycle you need all of the parts to create it. It's a factual statement that a cycle in the cell exists, that the cell depends on various functions. If Popoi can show a cell which doesn't depend on those functions and can still be viable, and shows evidence of that then he can back up his counter-claim. However I do not need to back up my claim that a cell requires certain features all in place in order to function, and that any simpler cell is non-existent and I have no rational reason to believe it ever existed. That's just to state facts. So to be honest I find it rather intellectually obtuse to put this focus on the "chicken and egg" phrase as though it has important where it really is just a saying people use. It wasn't really even an analogy, I was just saying in a colloquial way, there are systems which have cycles which in order to function need all parts to be utilised, and they all need to be in place for that cycle to occur. Forgive me but is it "wildly insufficient" to claim that a cell needs it's parts in order to be a cell and function? LOL! So somehow I think this is a desperate attempt to shift the burden of proof on to me, but I don't need it to be upon me, it is known science that there are a variety of components in the cell that require things in place to function. There is no logical or even scientific reason to suppose there could be a cell that could exist that would be a simpler version when it is known to scientists there has to be a minimum requirement in order for it to be viable. We don't. This is slothful induction fallacy, generally there is a complete and conspicuous absence of any common ancestry. In terms of the ancestors that are missing, they basically all are and there is no trunk that implies any abiogenesised ancestor. Even if you arrived at your conclusion there was a common ancestor, that conclusion would still count as a gross non-sequitur, because you can't use an induction of argued tenuous, circumstantial and flimsy evidence to conclude something was caused, without proving there can be a cause of the thing you argue. Evolution CLAIMS common ancestors exist because they are not found. To conclude there were common ancestors without proving a cause for them originally, is another type of circularity. Think about it. I may have shoes that suggest they were made on an alien world but if my conclusion is wrong (as in science wrong conclusions are of course possible as it doesn't operate in proof) then basically if aliens cannot come to exist, the conclusion itself must be wrong. In other words, your argument is tantamount to saying that evolution proves a common ancestor/s existed. (Don't be condescending, I know the difference between a monophyly and a polyphyletic UCA or UCAS, so don't pretend I don't have knowledge of obvious things please, when I know more about these things than you do.) CONCLUSION: It's insufficient that your argument alone IMPLIES an original common ancestor, your conclusion would still then INFER another claim, that such an ancestor could exist without any present known cause, and you need to argue a scientific cause for it.) Think about it this way, even if I agreed with you about everything and evolution didn't have to back up it's ancestor claim, nevertheless why would that give me a reason to believe the ancestor existed, when there are so many objections to evolution, and there is so great a conspicuous absence of direct evidence of all of the intermediates that would have had to exist? That it is even possible evolution is false technically, according to logical rules, means that you can't ASSUME one of it's features ( a common ancestor). In other words, deductive reason shows us that if a common ancestor cannot exist, then neither can evolution, which is why merely inferring it because you are misled to that conclusion is insufficient according to logical rules you are clearly unaware of.
  24. 2 points
    How do you know that one can't make analogies between for example computers and DNA? Because if you can do that you ought to be able to at least conclude that it's highly likely that the design of DNA is done by something capable of agency (in the philosophical meaning of the word agency). I don't understand your usage of the word parsimonious in your sentence, so I'll ignore that. But why do you think that an uncaused omniscient being that transcends space and time does not exist? Design in nature seems to be an indication of the contrary. And there are quite a number of other reasons to think that such an entity do exist. Why doesn't such reasons count in this context? I.e. what you seem to argue is that there are positive arguments for atheism, which really don't exist in any abundance. So what are those hidden arguments that you rely on? But really the answer to your question on why God is more likely or a better alternative to infinite multiverses is easy to answer. If there exists two explanations for an occurrence, it is usually correct to chose the one that requires the smallest number of assumptions. That is in short what Occam's razor says. Aside from what Mike already wrote. Another reasons why God would need less assumptions is that God is simple, which is in stark contrast to an infinite multiverses which by definition is infinite complex.
  25. 2 points
    IMHO, you're not wrong Tirian, specifically because of this point highlighted most notably, which represents prescience within the program. This is why earlier I said that GAs could only represent the most extreme form of guided evolution because there is more, "intellegence" put into them than there is evolution. Your example of his GA has several problems whereby "reality" is omitted. - Prescience. His program or him IIRC, already has the knowledge of the correct shape. - His polygons or whatever they are, or you can use any individual pieces of shapes or pixels, are inherently going to be useful to create any image, which is not a true picture of mutations. To explain the second one a bit more. In reality most mutations are either nearly neutral and many are harmful, rarely there is a useful one, so a random mistake in DNA means what actually mostly happens is mutations accumulate below the selection culling threshold. This means by example a gene for diabetes won't be removed from the gene pool if for example we pretend the person reproduces before they die. This is how many mutations accumulate. But with your example the polygons are ALL inherently easy to shape towards the goal, and in this way the polygons are relatively simple things to change by mutations, and the goal is relatively easy to achieve because all small shapes which change in hue, can create an image as long as they are arranged by an artist or program. In reality though, you would get a lot of useless polygons selection wouldn't be able to rule out. The problem is Goku the knowledge of the Mona Lisa image is contained in the program, just as the knowledge of your desired goal is contained in all GA programs. For this to truly simulate evolution rather than it simulating perfectly the fallacy of false equivalence, you actually have to only use the mechanisms of evolution without any pre-defined goal. The question is, are mutations creating things that are good for designing anatomy in real life experiments? With fruit flies, they got deformities from mutations, which were harmful, also legs growing out of the fly's head, extra wings which were useless because they had no musculature apparatus, or one wing which was disadvantageous. So in real life mutations are not inherently good for creating things. Errors which break things and make a mess are not conducive to a perfect design, but polygons are because all of them are inherently good for making pictures. If you have seperate shapes, hundreds of them, whether they are pixels or polygons, as long as they differ in shape and hue it's tautologous that you can make a picture with them. In nature if you break the genome it doesn't shape a new form from deformities, Goku. Lol. In fact deformity and mistakes in genetics stand out like a sore thumb, kind of like the Mona Lisa having a foot where the nose should be. If anything this heavily IMPLIES design in the original genetics, because to believe something like our fruit fly came about this way BETRAYS what we see under the microscope. Have you ever looked at the pictures of a flies head for example, the aerodynamics of the wings, the perfectly placed legs, all a neat symmetrical package? To believe evolution sculpted it using something as rubbish as mutations would be like saying, "we can create something like a plane from making a mess of a cars parts, we can remove the headlights and put them in the engine, we can place the wheels on the roof." ETC......if anything I feel embarrassed for evolutionists when we look at what mutations really create. They only seem to ACCENTUATE the original brilliance of the initial blueprint, so that we can logically conclude that mutations are errors that have crept in to the created forms, and the original forms had none. So for me mutations point back to a lack of mutations in the past, and we know that the more they accumulate the more this creates NOISE. Error catastrophe would occur in real evolution, long before you got any picture. It's not possible to convey to you the level of the intelligence found in anatomy and the immensity of the teleology if you haven't studied it. Unless you are willing to study it to some proper level you basically will never realise how blatant the intelligence in life is because you have dismissed it. Even a mandatory read of the works of William Paley show us the contrivance in life is way beyond anything any human being could ever create. He specifically takes us through each design in the human body for example, and shows why it is the perfectly correct one for the specific situation and location in the body and explains why. Even his explanation on joints is enough to dismiss evolution, for you would have to believe evolution just so happened upon every correct design in nature. I have no reason to believe that, and you only argue it based on abusing HINDSIGHT. I think your logic is wrong here. The easiest way to falsify ID would be to show there are none of the usual hallmark features of intelligence in life which is how we deduce there was a thinker. You see the signs of "intelligence" are things which are deliberately designed to achieve goals. To say "you're wrong" would mean you would have to conclude the signs of deliberate design in say a car, are not signs of intelligence. I wouldn't really be able to say, "God decided to do it that way" because slothful induction would SWAMP me. In reality slothful induction swamps the atheist arguments of "bad design", in any system they complain about, they will ignore the 99.999% of things the system does well as a design and will look for a negligible complaint. You must have heard them; the vas deferens, the laryngeal nerve, the wiring of the retina and blind spot. Etc....in reality experts in these areas have explained that these things actually aren't poor design but the point is, we couldn't get away with arguing design if in nature the percentage of poor design was the majority for any system. For example take any system the thing the atheist is arguing is bad design, is located in, and list all of the things the system does well by design, you end up with 99.9999% well designed things and the rest of the percentage is a negligible complaint. The list for the things the eye does well is almost endless for example. To focus on one complaint is slothful induction. But if it wasn't ID, it would be the other way around and slothful induction would swamp the theist like it does the atheist. If you were willing to learn what these things mean and why I am correct, you would go further with intellectual honesty. This was a fairly good point in a way. However what I was really saying was that there is a vast and endless variety of differing anatomies which all are designed to be viable at every stage, and is this an expectation of evolution? That's not quite the same as asking if evolution would be viable at every stage. To "see" the difference an example is required. In our frog and human hand, the digits develop differently, which is correct for each respective anatomy. These are both viable yes, but not expected from evolution as an apriori prediction. Let us now pretend a human hand developed the same as a frogs since both would have had a common ancestor in the past, so we would expect the same developmental "strategy" so to speak. Both would be viable, yes, but we would still not expect the viability we see in nature from evolution. So even if each individual's stage of development was viable, that wouldn't mean we would expect the level of diversely correct design we do actually see. For all you know that viability would come in the shape of one or two embryos for all vertebrates, where the embryological stages were the same, and you would end up with slightly different species. Why isn't that a prediction for evolution since it seems more realistic? Answer: because evolutionists simply pretend that what we do see is the expectation from evolution. But you wouldn't get those solutions just by asserting you would. GAs contain too much intelligent input. You have to start with something already designed like a circuit board or the conclusion already programmed in. Also the rate of mutations being substituted would not give you the results we see on earth, just because you assert they would. You don't know the problems that would arise in nature such as genetic entropy, error catastrophe and Haldane's dilemma. You don't know what this would result in in the real world because GAs are a computer program with lots of assumptions being GRANTED. If you create a GA which removes all the problems and it does lead to designs from scratch all on it's own like inventing something like a circuit board, then you have something. Just asserting the GAs would still create things with all the features of design from scratch doesn't count for anything. The burden of proof is upon you. Remember a lifeform has all the features of design like a circuit board or a helicopter or a computer, has a GA ever invented something like that with contingency plans and correct materials? These GAs are CRUDE compared to the true level of design, I don't think you have any concept of what you are dealing with. Yes but they all are. Your assertion "that actually does happen" is false Goku, because there is no example in nature of a whole species going bust because of non-viability of development. It happens with deformity in the individual, but the 99.999999% of people or animals that develop properly, proves there is a "correct" developmental design for that particular anatomy. You do realise that the design of the anatomy being correct, is based on the fact something exists to begin with? So it can't exist to begin with from something previous without assuming the previous. Your argument is sort of like saying this, without you realising it; "this car of mine was recalled because they put the headlight in the wrong place, therefore for this Volvo car, they designed the headlight in the wrong place." But all the other models have the light in the right place Goku, because a defect isn't part of the design plan. So by saying "if an individual or species", you committed a bait and switch fallacy. You switched what we are talking about (a kind of organism represented by many individuals), by giving an example of something which only happens to an individual or a few of them rather than the whole anatomy of that phenotype, for if this happens in an individual, that's not at all equal to it happening to a whole species. If it happens to a whole species, and none of the individuals have a viable method of development, they would all die in the first generation, or the initial one would die. I am not saying you committed the fallacy deliberately, but there is a world of difference here because everything in nature ever found for it to exist even as one individual, it had to have a viable method of development meaning any examples of things dying today has nothing to do with there being a wrongly designed anatomy. It's trickier to explain this I am hoping you, "get" what I am saying here and see the difference.
×

Important Information

Our Terms