Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - One-night stands: they're genetic!

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

One-night stands: they're genetic!
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12, 13, 14 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Mix1

Joined: 08 May 2007

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:25 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

All it shows is how little you understand arguments against your theory.
i've read all your evo books and watched all your molecules-to-mammoths magic shows.

Does anyone else here think the creationist/ID arguments tend to have a "I know you are but what am I?" sort of feel to them? It feels like arguing with a stubborn child or something.

Also, they've been trounced so badly by facts and evidence but they keep coming back with the same nonsensical pseudo-scientific punchlines and somehow think they win. It's like a kid who get's pounded down, face rubbed in the mud, and sat on, then runs away yelling "I won!"

...Yet at the same time try to claim they are victims that are being silenced for no reason. The reason is your evidence is mostly bonkers.

Name one book on evolution (not written by an ID shill) that you have read. If it was read, it was not comprehended. Of course you have every right to disagree with the content, but then don't go asserting your alternate view and not expect a challenge.

Also, feel free to recommend a book to us that has actual evidence (the bible doesn't count). But to warn you in advance, no one outside of your kool-aid cult takes those sources seriously. Again, there is a reason why those books legally cannot be taught in schools.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:59 am Post subject:

WishfullThinking wrote:

the iq levels of humans with different personality traits. those who were religious and conservative tended to score lower than their counter-peers. coincidence? i'll let you ponder that.

Then why does the US have the highest IQ but also the highest number of christians?

In reality the only thing that studies actually show is that GDP, not religion, is related to IQ. People in poor countries have lower IQ's.

People in rich countries are less likely to need or think of God due to all their material wealth. Although the US does buck that trend.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religion_vs_iq.html

Quote:

it's insulting to anyone who cherishes science and reasoning over speculation.

You do realise of course that most of the great scientists in history were christian?

Evolution is 99% speculation and conjecture btw.

Quote:

evolution absolutely does not require a gain of anything

So how did those amoebas become blue whales over time?

Mix1 wrote:

Also, they've been trounced so badly by facts and evidence but they keep coming back with the same nonsensical pseudo-scientific punchlines and somehow think they win. It's like a kid who get's pounded down, face rubbed in the mud, and sat on, then runs away yelling "I won!"

Please show me one living organism that has significantly changed form in the course of the fossil record.

Last edited by Junior on Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:18 am; edited 3 times in total

recessiontime

Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:11 am Post subject:

I sense the God-haters in the thread are becoming frustrated with your well thought out arguments. Junior, I think you are very close to winning.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:27 am Post subject:

Underwtaerbob wrote:

Bible = almost 2000 years old.

Actually it is up to 3500 years old. Certainly the creation account/ Genesis.

Mix1 wrote:

don't go asserting your alternate view

Why not? I.D. is science, it does not even mention a single word about religion.

Why so afraid to allow it to be taught alongside evolution? Why not let people hear the evidence and make up their own minds.

Quote:

feel free to recommend a book to us that has actual evidence (the bible doesn't count).

Why not? The bible is the most archaeologically verified ancient document in existence. Almost every place and significant person mentioned in it has been verified by other sources.

But if you're going to arbitrarily ban me from using my sources of choice, then you really should stop quoting papers written by evolutionists. They're obviously brainwashed and biased in favour of evolution, and have never researched alternative interpretations for the evidence.

Once again..we have unearthed multimillions of fossils from all strata and all countries around the globe, claimed to cover the entire time period of life on earth.
So... show me something that has changed.

MyNameIsNobody

Joined: 12 Jan 2011
Location: Here

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:52 am Post subject: Re: One-night stands: they're genetic!

MyNameIsNobody wrote:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/primer/genetics_genome.html

Linked above is a non-painful website that defines a genome and some other relevant stuff. I'm directing this more to the people who have little background in the subject.

Aye, aye! Nerd power.

For balance's sake, here's a link that discusses an alternative theory of Intelligent Design:

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

cyui

Joined: 10 Jan 2011

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:38 am Post subject:

Yes, it started during the Rise of The Socialist Party. People used sex to fight against The Oppressive Riegn..you can bet theres also a Y cromo involved. But, people aren't using it now.

Mix1

Joined: 08 May 2007

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:47 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Mix1 wrote:

don't go asserting your alternate view

Why not? I.D. is science, it does not even mention a single word about religion.

You misquoted me. I said "Of course you have every right to disagree with the content, but then don't go asserting your alternate view and not expect a challenge."

That's a very different meaning than what you quoted. You can't cut a sentence in half and then only take half the meaning. This is called quote mining, which is a deceitful tactic that creationists are notorious for, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you do it too. It's quoting out of context or using an incomplete quote to try to show or imply a different meaning than the author intended.

Very dishonest and not very Christ-like. You've lost the right to preach at us anymore.

The main problem with quote mining is that it mischaracterizes and distorts information, usually to fit a predetermined outcome or point of view, which is exactly what creationists/ID proponents do. It's also the reason why nobody takes ID sources seriously and why it cannot be taught in schools alongside science. People are free to learn about ID propaganda on their own or in church, but not in schools. That tells you a lot about it right there.

ID may masquerade as science but in general it is NOT science. The courts ruled it. It seems you disdain the U.S. courts, the First Amendment, and the scientific community, so maybe that makes no difference to you. If you want creationism/ID taught in schools you might have better luck in the Middle East. Although, since most there are Muslim, I guess you'd have a whole different battle on your hands then wouldn't you?

And to your response along the lines of U.S. having the most Christians, etc. No doubt a vast number of them are Christian mostly in name only. They may even believe in a god and vaguely follow the teachings of Jesus, but they certainly don't all believe like you do regarding the literal nature of the genesis myth, so don't even try to lump yourself in with the majority of Christians.

You don't speak for them and you don't represent them. There are loads of Christians who believe in evolution because they know evidence when they see it.

Hardcore, literal creationist beliefs are relics of an ancient and pre-Enlightenment era. it just doesn't make sense to believe it in the modern age. Many Christians have modified their beliefs over time but some have not. The literalists will hopefully become just an embarrassing, radical faction that will slowly wither, and so for them, ID is a just a desperate attempt to reclaim some power and legitimacy.

But in the end, it won't work, and the longer people dismiss the process of evolution the more foolish they will look. But of course the choice is yours. Just don't expect anyone, especially judges, juries, the scientific community, and rational people to take your position too seriously or let it go unchallenged.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:02 am Post subject:

Mix1 wrote:

Hardcore, literal creationist beliefs are relics of an ancient and pre-Enlightenment era. it just doesn't make sense to believe it in the modern age. Many Christians have modified their beliefs over time but some have not. The literalists will hopefully become just an embarrassing, radical faction that will slowly wither, and so for them, ID is a just a desperate attempt to reclaim some power and legitimacy.

Its true that biblical literalist creationism is a relic of older times, unlike biblical literal atheism, which is a blight on the modern world. But biblical literalist creationism in ancient times existed alongside biblical interpretive creationism, just as biblical literalist creationism exists alongside biblical interpretations that are not creationist today.

Mix1

Joined: 08 May 2007

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:32 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

But if you're going to arbitrarily ban me from using my sources of choice, then you really should stop quoting papers written by evolutionists. They're obviously brainwashed and biased in favour of evolution, and have never researched alternative interpretations for the evidence.

No one is "banning" you from doing anything, that's another mischaracterization of what was written (you've been doing that a lot). Playing the victim card won't work.

Yes, it's a problem when we won't trust each other's sources.
I said it would be hard for me to take your sources seriously, and I stand by that, and you've shown you won't take scientific sources seriously, which is not something that works in your favor.

By the way, you never did mention a single evolution book that you have read, even though you've claimed to read "all" of them (that's a lot more than I've read). Are you really telling us the truth?

Quote:

Once again..we have unearthed multimillions of fossils from all strata and all countries around the globe, claimed to cover the entire time period of life on earth.
So... show me something that has changed.

point 1: Since evolution is defined as change over time in heritable traits, then essentially all fossils are in some way transitional forms. This was already mentioned. But you don't accept that so why ask?
point 2: Anything shown to you will never be accepted as transitional, it's either one thing or the other. In your eyes, it's either a monkey or a man. A lizard or a fish. A bird or a dinosaur (wait, do you believe in dinosaurs?).
The goalposts just keep being pushed back due to the ideological blinders.

But just for fun, here are a couple to consider...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

There are many more examples but why burden yourself?

Of course, your trustworthy, peer reviewed, scholarly creationist websites have probably already reviewed these examples and will be telling you where to classify them. Hey, as long as someone somewhere on the net can discount the fossil it somehow disproves the whole process right?

But let's flip this back the other way and apply the same standard to your side: Where is the fossil evidence for the giants you claimed existed? Show us!

morrisonhotel

Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Location: Gyeonggi-do

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:56 pm Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Then why does the US have the highest IQ but also the highest number of christians?

I can find innumerable pages on the internet suggesting that Koreans/Chinese/Japanese/certain countries in Europe have the highest IQs, but nothing about the USA being within that highest group. You may have a point about IQS being lower in poorer countries, but I would suggest you're talking out of your rear on this point. You're also misquoting the source you posted - 'one of the highest' is different from being the highest, you know?

wishfullthinkng

Joined: 05 Mar 2010

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:00 pm Post subject:

oh my. you are a glutton for punishment indeed. isn't that against the rules of the bible?

first:

Junior wrote:

wrong. wrong. wrong. are you materializing your "facts" from something you read that one time with that one friend in that one coffee shop that you forgot the name of? america in terms of iq per capita is ranked 19th, at least according to this study. (source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations)
hong kong, south korea and japan rank 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respectively, and having been to every country i've mentioned multiple times, i personally don't doubt it for a minute. if you can find any credible information please do share it with me, but don't make things up, it really makes it hard to believe you know what you are talking about at all.
also, poor people are the only ones who need to believe in god? ridiculous. it's the weak minded and foolish.

next:

Quote:

You do realise of course that most of the great scientists in history were christian?

this statement means nothing. i know quite a few politicians who are "christians" too. sometimes you need to maintain the status quo to get ahead. and again, please re-read my wording carefully. it's the larger majority that has the lower iq, not everyone who is religious or conservative. your reading comprehension is severely lacking in this thread.

next:

Quote:

Evolution is 99% speculation and conjecture btw.

So how did those amoebas become blue whales over time?

again, you just don't get it. i'm not an expert in this exact matter, and i will not pretend that i know exactly how, much unlike your methodology. you realize that asking very specific questions that most people don't know enough about to answer and already refusing to believe the truth in your mind if they could indeed produce that correct answer is a very poor way to try and make a point right?
also, you stating that evolution is 99% speculation is speculation itself. if you can't see the hypocrisy in that statement you should just stop writing anything until you take a good hard look at what it is you think it is that you know.

oh and i guess my previous post didn't give you enough juicy tidbits of mind-changing goodness. here's another. a virus was discovered that is dated to be more than 19 million years old. try explaining that one.
source: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/09/ancient-virus-found-hiding-out-i.html

start thinking for yourself junior and never join a debate team because you will get torn to ribbons. for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, please just stop posting. i'm sure you can't be as ignorant as this thread makes you look. i'm sorry if i come across aggressively, its just thinking like yours that keeps this world from progressing in the way it needs to.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:48 pm Post subject:

wishfullthinkng wrote:

also, poor people are the only ones who need to believe in god? ridiculous. it's the weak minded and foolish.

Statements like this will only accomplish two things: making yourself look like an angsty thirteen-year-old and getting the thread locked.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:27 am Post subject:

Mix1 wrote:

ID may masquerade as science but in general it is NOT science. The courts ruled it.

Actually the (one) court did not rule that it was "not science".
The judge (who I already demonstrated to you was corrupt) ruled that there was a flaw in the theory. You didn't answer that point. I showed you that the judge simply copied verbatim a statement from the ACLU.

Quote:

It seems you disdain ... the scientific community

Let me remind you again that many great scientists were christian.
Before evolutionism (which is relatively recent), science was christian. Scientists conducted research and made discoveries with the assumption that the universe was God-made, and founded on laws and principles. Science and Christianity were productively intertwined for centuries.
Christianity has never been anti-science. It is pro-science. Many useful scientific facts are written in the bible centuries before scientists discovered them.
Many hospitals, schools and universities are founded and sponsored by christian churches. Why would that be so if Christians were "anti-science"?

Your ridiculous efforts to mischaracterize those with alternative viewpoints are so typical of evolutionists.

Quote:

No doubt a vast number of them are Christian mostly in name only.

You constantly present your conjectured opinions as fact. Just like a typical evolutionist.

Quote:

Since evolution is defined as change over time in heritable traits

I heard dozens of different definitions of evolution. Its a highly malleable term. Its defenders pluck whichever definition out of their hat most suits them at the time.
At this point you're trying to squirm out of the hole you've dug by re-defining it.

Please clarify exactly what you believe. I already did so briefly a couple pages back.

Do you believe that all living things evolved from an ancestral molecule?

Do you believe that evolution, for the most part, included changes in organisms from simple to complex, on a massive scale, comprising dramatic changes in morphology over time?

Quote:

But just for fun, here are a couple to consider...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Wow. Tiktaalik keeps coming back. So regularly you'd think it was the only one that evos have.

I thoroughly discredited it on several threads before. I really wish the mods would not keep deleting the threads with all my links. Basically..from memory..tiktaalik is too structurally different from its supposed next of kin. It presents an insurmountable leap in form.

Although at first sight appearing superficially similar, the bone structure is very different. look at the digits of the lobe-finned fish vs the tetrapod. Tiktaalik is very clearly, just a lobe-finned fish.

You see this is where evo's often get away with deception. On the surface, and to the dumbed-down population who know almost nothing about biology or biochemistry, the two look fairly similar, so it doesn't take much imagination to picture one morphing into the other by some mysterious magical process.
But when you go deeper than the skin and look at things on the microbiological and biochemical level, you begin to realise the sheer impossibility of evolution.

*Anchiornis:
Before you get too excited about your supposed transitional form, please just have look at this picture.
http://www.artofpigeons.com/So-Calif-Color-Pigeon-Club.html
You do realise that birds with muffed feet are not exactly rare?
But look at the feathers on the foot. Notice how different they are in structure to the flight feathers on the wing. Do know know about primaries and secondaries? I'm guessing not.
Basically, feathers used for flight, on the wing, show a distinct structure on all birds. They are not symettrical or downy as on your anchiornis.

Second, anchironis has long legs. This usually indicates the creature was a runner. Runners do not have strongly feathered legs i'm afraid.

but then your ever-imaginative evolutionists get round this by saying the leg feathers were vestigial. In other words, what they're trying to claim is that a dinosaur decided to grow wings and fly. Confused, it accidentally grew 4 wings, then decided 2 of them were not needed. So it got rid of one pair and kept the other.

And you're presenting this to us with a serious face I take it?

*Darwin did not know much about what was inside creatures. It was easy and simplistic to imagine that one thing could transition into another, without having to explain much about how. An alluring story indeed.

But nowadays we have such things as electron microscopes. We know that apparently simple biological systems (eg blood-clotting) are actually extremely complex chemical processes- long chains of events. Systems that could not have evolved. irreducibly complex. That to anyone with the most basic sense, shows evidence of intelligent design.

If evolution was as widespread and common as you claim, and that all of the millions of lifeforms currently on the planet share a single ancestor, ...then this should be blatantly, stark-staringly obvious in the fosil record.
We should only be digging down a few feet to find animals recognisably, but already slightly different, to todays forms. Hundreds and thousands of todays lifeforms should have obvious predessors stretching back in chains of developing forms the deeper we dig. We have millions of fossils now. We have more than a century of fossil discovery.

But after all this, the fossil record shows stasis.

let me clarify:. NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

A quick glance at the news today reveals that spiders haven't changed either. They haven't grown even a single extra hair in the the past 310 million years.

Fossil Golden orb Weaver Spider found in Mongolia
April 19th 2011
http://www.livescience.com/13789-largest-fossil-spider-china.html

MyNameIsNobody

Joined: 12 Jan 2011
Location: Here

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:27 am Post subject: One-night stands: they're genetic!

Junior wrote:

Mix1 wrote:

ID may masquerade as science but in general it is NOT science. The courts ruled it.

Quote:

It seems you disdain ... the scientific community

Obviously, you're never going to meet two Christians who agree on exactly the same things. Also, I don't know if you hold Catholics in any form of esteem, but here is a clip from an interview George Coyne gave. He is a Jesuit priest and former director of the Vatican Observatory. While you may not value his opinions as a scientist, surely you cannot discredit his words on scripture in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReV0nCuObcs

Mix1

Joined: 08 May 2007

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 11:41 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Mix1 wrote:

ID may masquerade as science but in general it is NOT science. The courts ruled it.

Your side lost in a court of law, and now you cry foul. Talk about sore losers...

You are flat out wrong on several points again. It's hard to know if you are lying or just have reading comprehension issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

The decision: "...the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

and... "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science."

So, they indeed ruled ID is NOT science. Were you being disingenuous or did you just not read?

This points to one of your core problems in this debate: you either don't comprehend written material properly or you only see what you want to see in the material. Neither of these are very positive and these qualities tend to make people frustrated in a debate. However, don't think you are winning just because the other side is frustrated, they'd much rather you bring forth a coherent, logical argument.

That was the ruling, doesn't matter if you agree or not. If it was a "sham" trial, why was there no mistrial?

If you want the U.S. Constitution violated, and your position suggests you do desire this, then you can always start your own trial.

As for the judge (a conservative Christian and Republican), you did not "demonstrate" that he is "corrupt" you asserted it. And this is another problem: you don't demonstrate much of anything, you just assert things and then claim the other side is inflexible, which is ironic to say the least. So, the ACLU was at the trial; do you disdain civil liberties as well?

And WHY is ID not science?

from the court decision: "We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."

As for your ideological buddies, let's see how they fared in the trial...

"...there were calls for the defendants accused of not presenting their case honestly to be put on trial for committing perjury. "Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions," Judge Jones wrote. "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. ... Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. ... Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony." An editorial in the York Daily Record described their behaviour as both ironic and sinful, saying that the "unintelligent designers of this fiasco should not walk away unscathed".

Not very Christian-like. I'm seeing a pattern here. This ID movement is not even mainstream Christian but more like a radical cult. And you've drank the kool-aid it seems. (I know, you'll flip this around and say the same about "my" side).

Quote:

Let me remind you again that many great scientists were christian.

You mean like Galileo, who was imprisoned for life by the church? Thank goodness you guys can't get away with that anymore.

Anyway this is one of your most logically fallacious arguments yet (not counting your embellished account of the genesis myth). Saying "many great scientists were Christian" in no way proves or disproves anything at all. Most people were Christian by default in those days; they didn't know any better and they often didn't have much choice (religious freedom, and freedom from it, came later).

And There are plenty of rational scientists who are Christians, or simply theists, AND think your ID position is completely bonkers. That's because theism and evolution can coexist, but you are even outside of that framework entirely and out in left field. Try not to lump all Christians together and don't act as though you represent the rational, middle ground or something.

Regarding disdaining scientific sources, you certainly do seem to disdain the majority of the scientific community (by the way, name a respected scientist who completely shuns the evolutionary process as you do -not that it would prove much).

So to clarify, it seems you disdain not only "much" of the scientific community (Christians included - as not all believe as you do), but also the scientific process itself, which is even worse.

ID takes a foregone conclusion and then shapes and even distorts the facts to make it fit that conclusion no matter what. That's not a scientific process in any way, and when people show you evidence that respect this process by using the scientific method, you reject the source. That's disdain.

Quote:

You constantly present your conjectured opinions as fact.

Of all the spurious statements you've written, this one is one of the most ironic, as this is what you have been doing the entire thread. Your assertions here have a childish "I'm rubber, you're glue..." sort of feel to them.

And regarding the statement that we have somehow changed and mangled the definition of evolution, it was you that did that, not us. The exact definition worded from Wiki has been on here at least three times. Either you are lying again or you can't read properly.

And you still haven't mentioned "all" those evolution books you claimed to have read...

I may respond to the fossil questions later but it'll have to wait. Hopefully someone else can comment on it as well...

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12, 13, 14 Next
Page 5 of 14

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe